Islamic banking Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Islamic banking - Essay Example The laws governing Islamic banking aim at protecting the interests of the public (El, Tiby 3). This paper will discuss why Islamic banks are becoming popular to the extent that they can extend their services to most parts of the world. The paper will also discuss how Islamic banking can be the solution to the economic problems that emanate from the financial crisis. Over the past few years, Islamic banking has become a popular form of banking; as a result, Islamic banks have expanded their activities to most parts of the world. A crucial factor that has led to the significant spread of Islamic banking is because the banks do not charge interest. Islamic banks oppose the charging of interests on loans since some investments financed by loans may not perform well. Islamic banking tends to prohibit only the forms of finance where there are interests charged. As a result, the relationship between borrowers and banks is guided by the risks and returns that the two entities share. Islamic banking holds that since profit is not guaranteed, there is no need to charge interests. This notion has led to the spread of the ideals of Islamic banking in most parts of the world (Aziz & Gintzburger 270). It is worth noting that another factor that has contributed to the expansion of Islamic banking is the use of lease-based transactions, commonly referred as Ijarah. This form of transaction in Islamic banking is becoming popular, especially in the United States financial market. Ijarah refers to a form of leasing whereby there is the acquisition of the asset by the bank, after which the bank leases the customer the asset. This means that the customer will finally be the owner of the asset, either through the purchase of the asset at an agreed price or through leasing the asset (Aziz & Gintzburger 271). The spread of Islamic banking also emanates from the Murabaha service offered by the bank. This can be regarded as the most popular form of Islamic financing.

Consequences of Water Scarcity Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Consequences of Water Scarcity - Research Paper Example Water scarcity effects can clearly be analyzed from this group of people i.e. from North Africa. The first issue we look at is the impact on the economy. Africa being a continent that is not much into industrialization, its economic backbone is therefore agricultural based which is directly affected by water scarcity. Plants need water to survive which can be administered to them through rainfall or irrigation. This means that agriculture as an economic sector use close to 78% of all water consumption in Africa. Apart from food which is normally grown for consumption by a family, there is also surplus that is normally sold for income not forgetting the cash crop industry that sees most European and Asian countries use the same in the processing industries from coffee to cocoa. With water shortage this chain is clearly broken with the end results being detrimental not only for Africa as a continent but to the end user consumer who may be subjected to prices that are inflated due to a higher demand for a scares commodity. The United nation commission for Africa noted that since a large percentage of Africa as a continent relies heavily on rainfall fed agriculture, global warming has a direct impact on it. Thus a structure has to be established to encourage irrigation as an alternative and since the machinery required for irrigation is expensive the world in general will have to be subjected to higher charges on commodities that initially were in their price range (UN Economic commission for Africa). The other issue that stands out is the environmental preservation as affected by water scarcity. We know very well that for an economy that is somehow able water scarcity is usually talked through use of boreholes and sinking of wells. In most parts of northern Kenya (Africa) there has been an increased number of sinking of wells and boreholes sponsored by non-governmental organization. This they say is one way of helping the indigenous communities from migrations in search of water. In as much as it is for a good cause, there have been reports of sinking grounds in those areas. Just like in the state of Denver Colorado, the effects are real. This is due to the fact that when water is drained out the soil particles and rocks are coalesced closer together as a result of spaces left by the drained water. In as much as it is not a great concern in the East African country, its effect in places like Denver is catastrophic since buildings become unstable in sinking soils meaning that engineers have to take into account such calculation to avoid disasters in the future. This has seen the state adopt the use of recharge basins which have been dug into the sandy grounds of the area. This allows collection of water during rainy seasons and from surrounding rivers that tends to seep into the ground with time allowing for replenishment of the groundwater that initially had been drained out for use. These means that the environmental preservation is somehow conserved which reduces the effect of sinking of grounds that is associated with grounds that have been drained off their water. (Thirst cities: water management in a hanging environment). As we have seen, the scarcity of water affects a third of the world’s population. Thus there is prone to be stresses in relation to available water resources which may see human conflicts arising from the

The Political Philosophy Of Deception Philosophy Essay

The Political Philosophy Of Deception Philosophy Essay Deception is a part of our everyday lives, it is a part of who we are. What differentiates each and every one of us is the degree of deception that we incorporate in to our lives. Hence, how we look at and interpret deception, and thus, the truth, depends on our perspective, our moral grounding, our exposure and experiences in the wider world- beyond our immediate circle of life. This essay will attempt to find a general definition for deception that will agree with most, and will explore how deception is present in our lives and how that affects the amount of deception involved in politics. It will argue that deception is necessary in politics, and sometimes beneficial (and sometimes not), and this is because we as the general public allows it so. Drawing from the Machiavelli and Strauss schools of thought on how deception is an integral part of politics- and examining this claim through the case studies of the Vietnam and Iraq wars- this essay will conclude that the reason politici ans use deception is because it is sometimes more desirable than the absolute truth and also because it is easier to exploit and appeal towards the human conditions deep inclination towards self-deceit. Lies and deception often used interchangeably however, there is a difference. Citing Mahon (2008), Arico Fallis (2013) states that in order to lie one must say something that they believe is false. Deception engages people in a more deeper extent with the intention overriding the face-worth of a lie; Lies are a form of fabrication, where false information is created and presented as true whereas deception, especially in politics, is more motivated to manipulate, where information which is technically true is being presented out of context in order to create a false implication (Caddell, 2004). According to Caddell (2004) deception depends on two criteria: first, it is intentional; and, second, it is designed to gain an advantage for the practitioner. To understand why and how deception is involved in politics warrants a deeper analysis into the people involved and thus a look into understanding human behaviour and reasoning associated with deception. In the most basic sense, politicians and those who are engaged in the governing processes of our everyday life are only distinguishable from the general public because of the authority we as the general public grant them. Therefore they are also susceptible to the behavioural and cognitive aspects of an ordinary human being. With studies that propose and adopt the notion of self-deceit thus also applies to politicians, so as this essay will argue, will inherently translate into their decisions and actions and thus it is no surprise that politics, as with all other parts of life, would involve deception; therefore, deception is s present and necessary in politics. Self-deception also has many definitions offered its way, and as with the definitions for lies and deception, it will identify with everyone in varying levels- because individuals tend to treat their personal values as a kind of ideal point (Cowen, 2005). He defines it as individual behaviour that disregards, throws out, or reinterprets freely available information; people keep, absorb, and magnify the information that puts their values and affiliations in a favourable light and disregard the rest. Beahrs (1996) adds that deception of others is often accompanied by deception of self and vice versa. This leads to what Williams (1996) calls collective self-deception where the status of politics as represented in the media is ambiguous between entertainment and the transmission of discoverable truth. There are many ways deception is used in politics, and for many reasons. In politics, deception as the term will be used in this essay, could be used as a diversionary tactic, as a means to retain a favourable public relations image, a strategy to handle a difficult and sensitive situation or as the version that is linked to Platonic Noble Lies, used to protect society, a little sacrifice, in order to achieve the greater good (Jacobsen, 2008). Deception in politics and especially foreign affairs, usually involve decisions that are made in the spirit that they are acceptable or excusable because it is done in service of the national interest (Jacobsen, 2008). Therefore according to Beahrs (1996) deceit is probably required for a politician to achieve political success, because we as the people are so engulfed with expectation that it is inevitable and that if it is done in good faith there can be no harsh consequences, so it is easier to handle and deal with. There are many arguments on whether or not deception in politics, in government- essentially as an institution that holds the peoples trust (Williams, 1996) is acceptable. The idealists make a moral and ethical case, where deception, according to an absolute set of standards, is absolutely improper and inappropriate, but according to realists, and dependent on a cost-benefit analysis, the use of deception depends on how good it will achieve and whether it is consistent with protecting national interests and values (Caddell, 2004). Politicians need the people support; and in a liberal democracy one cannot coerce it or expect it as a gift, so they need to put on a persona that is of acceptable standards to others and this leads to deception that builds on (Sofier, 1999). Machiavelli and Strauss: A Look at Modern Day Politics Politicians have less incentive to be absolutely truthful and tend to deceive because they are in office only for a number of years and hence their accountability is limited (Davis Ferrantino, 1996). And politicians know this; according to ex-Australian Senator Graham Richardson, whether one tells the truth is not what really matters, but whether one gets the job done- and in that respect, one simply has to do whatever it takes, and if that involves an element of deceit or misdirection, then so be it (Malpas, 2008). Politicians tend to distract people from the negativity that is involved in everyday political decision making and focus on tunnelling public emotion toward achieving their goals by appealing to their sense of nationalism and personal preferences/group and party loyalty, especially in the event of wars. Deception is politics is almost considered traditional- it is not a recent phenomenon nor is it a fad that peaks every now and then. How politicians conduct themselves have been largely influenced by how politics had been handled in the past and the role deception plays has evolved; it has been more of a learning process, where by using the past political deceptions, politicians have extracted knowledge from what works to what doesnt, and when and how to use it best. Therefore deception in modern politics have become more sophisticated and subtle in its execution. This essay will discuss the schools of thought of two famous political thinkers whose influence has shaped the way deception in politics is carried out. Niccolo Machiavelli, whose most famous work, The Prince, is a handbook that offers effective techniques to retain power- that is still considered relevant today, because it addresses to the primitive, most basic psychological aspect of people. He employs a realist approach to politics, which is still used by many countries in their approach to domestic and international affairs, and adopts the view that politicians need to act dirty and learn how not to be good (Bellamy, 2010). He insists though, that this shouldnt be always the case; there is a right time to apply this to decision making. This is because we live in a world of wolves and traps so one as a politician must be willing to act as lions and employ force to overcome the one and be as cunning as foxes to avoid the second. However, to compensate for their deceitful means poli ticians should use proportionality in their actions, and must appear good; therefore the Machiavellian politician must appear compassionate, generous, reliable, morally upright and honest, yet be prepared to be treacherous, break their promises and use their resources selectively (Bellamy, 2010). But for this to work, nobody must know or want to know- and this is where its success hinges upon; thus the reason deception in politics almost always works because we as the public allows it so, because we ourselves are prone to self-deceit. And especially when it comes to the politicians, as Machiavelli instructed his Prince, force- as it would be used in conflict and wars- might be necessary if the safety and perseveration of community is threatened but one should never to attempt to win by force what can be won by deception; however, he did not instruct carrying out deception because the public cannot handle the truth, it was more out of necessity to ensure national interest are served and power remains intact (Drury, 1996). Leo Strauss on the other hand, did believe that deception was necessary because the public cannot tolerate the truth. He believed that societies should be hierarchical, divided between the elites who rule and the masses who follow, and this was the natural order (Lob, 2007). He states that people need to be told only what is considered the bare minimum and no more and if information is not controlled as such, they would into nihilism or anarchism (Lob, 2007). Religion was seen as the moral grounding that one should lead their lives on, but this only applied to the masses; according to Lob (2007) rulers need not be bound by religion and the ethical codes associated with it because they are required to deceive in order to govern. Strauss believed that humans are wicked and aggressive by nature, and that there needs to be strict governance and this requires unity. But in order to unite the masses the politicians need to find a cause and this could be achieved by referring to an external threat, which could result in wars (Lob, 2007). Following the ideas of these two thinkers, this essay will now look into two wars that have resulted from roots of deception and analyse how political deception works in real life. Fabrication and manipulation have both proved to be useful in the history of warfare and used as a means to vilify opposition, justify violence and to protect national security and other interests. Caddell (2004) states that depending on the intent, militaries at the command of politicians engage in three levels of deception; The U.S. military community traditionally recognizes three levels of deceptionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢based on the nature of the intent; Strategic Deception intends to disguise basic objectives, intentions, strategies, and capabilities whereas Operational Deception, tries to misguide an adversary regarding a specific operation or action you are preparing to conduct and as seen in the American doctrines, finally, there is Tactical Deception which is intended to mislead others while they are actively involved in competition with you, your interests, or your forces. Caddell (2004) also points out that unless under oath in a court or otherwise bound legally to tell the truth, under domestic law there is no constitutional principle that says that the President of the United States or the Executive Branch must tell the truth. Iraq and Vietnam This essay will now discuss two of the most controversial wars (conducted by the United States of America) that have been marred by the use of identified deception in its operation. The Vietnam War (1964-1975) was initiated based on a lie. The incidents that supposedly initiated the war revolved around a couple of incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin; the USA announced two unprovoked attacks on U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese boats- one of which did not take place and the other being provoked by the USA due to their proximity (ten miles) of the destroyer to the Vietnamese coast and by a series of CIA-organized raids on the coast (Zinn, 1991). The lies followed and multiplied; there were lies that were told by the then-President Johnson who assured the USA was only engaged in conflict with military targets when thousands of non-combatants were killed, and when President Nixon suppressed information from the public about the 1969-1970 bombings of Cambodia, which was considered unnecessa ry (Zinn, 1991). According to Jacobsen (2008), the deceptions that took place were done with full knowledge of the people involved; as admitted by a US General, the objective at the time was to keep the American public in the dark and as later found out President Nixon wrote to Henry Kissinger that it would be very helpful if a propaganda offensive could be [mounted], consistently reporting what we have done in offering peace in Vietnam in preparation for what we may have to do. Following Machiavelli and Strauss, all this was masked by implanting ideas that those who opposed the war were un-American (Beahrs, 1996) and that this was a war being fought to secure American national interests and as a means to fulfil its world responsibility, in order to gather and maintain support and power. The recent Iraq war (2003-2011) is also under much scrutiny for its reasons for initiation and implementation. The main reasons to go to war were based on the suspicion that the Iraqi government harboured chemical weapons and that its dictator leader, Saddam Hussein, could potentially use them; what the justification for how inhumane this would be left out of the picture was that when weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were actually used in the 1980s, the US government was supportive of the Saddam regime (Martin, 2003). There was more vocal debate against this war at the time, because its direct correlation with the war on terror did not provide sufficient ground for an invasion of that scale. The crucial political asset of trust which broke the publics opinion and respect for government was still not fully restored since Vietnam-because only one third of the Americans supported George W. Bush decision to go to Iraq (Jacobsen, 2008). Despite the undermining reports of the existence o f WMDs and other contradictory evidence, the need to go to war to protect American interests and defeat terrorism was too strong, and to justify this an agency called the Office of Special Plans was created, distinct from the known and reputable defence services, specifically to find evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq (Lob, 2007). The public outrage over these two wars and the other scandals that have resulted after uncovered deception goes on to show that we still regard truthfulness is still somewhat important (Malpas, 2008). Governments have been overthrown and its officials brought to justice because such deception does much damage to our conviction of credibility and legitimacy of our trust; yet, at the same time, as Malpas (2008) suggests, associated with self-deceit, our commitment to truth in itself is a lie. Although truthfulness is an honourable ideal, the realities of life require a more pragmatic approach, and thus we must accept the necessity of the lie, the half-truth, the obfuscation, and the omission (Malpas, 2008). But what is Truth? In order to fully appreciate deception, we must know what truth is. Malpas (2008) defines truth as a combination of both accuracy, understood in statements and sincerity, understood in actions. According to Arico Fallis (2013) you warrant the truth if you implicitly promise, or offer a guarantee, that what you assert is true. Truth is important, because if there is nothing to distinguish beliefs and our errors, deception and our limits. Truth is the idea of ethics that reach beyond the particularities of our personal and social situatedness that makes possible the engagement with others who may not share in that situatedness (Malpas, 2008). Self-deception thus falls under as a failure of sincerity (Williams, 1996). In government and politics, truth is desirable and it holds itself in virtue, but in line with Machiavelli thought, the responsibilities of government are sufficiently different from those of private individuals to make governmental virtue a rather different matter from t hat of individuals; that is for any government that is charged with the security of its citizens, a responsibility which cannot be discharged without secrecy, deception is a necessity- a government would be considered lucky if it can discharge its duties as such without force and fraud (Williams, 1996). Towards Effective Governance In conclusion, this essay will look at whether we can void deception in politics or whether we should not be fazed by its presence. In essence, only a few actually would prefer absolute truth from their political leaders, given that the deception we would expect would be for our own good. We are often victims of self-deception ourselves, and we accept that deception sometimes is acceptable- we engage in it in every day and every way of our lives. But what should not be confused with this admission is that deception in politics should not reflect politicians individual beliefs and opinions; as long as the deception serves domestic and foreign interests in a manner that would not jeopardize public trust and respect- and if it is done in secrecy than outright lying, it could be held with tolerance. But it should be noted that even benevolent deceptions can acquire their own momentum in unpredictable and undesirable directions (Beahrs, 1996). The way we understand politics could have an impact on how we approach and respond to political deception. The Machiavellians of our time, the advisors, the Generals, the state and defence officers insist that they serve national interests, national security and national defense; these phrases put everyone in the country under one enormous blanket, camouflaging the differences between the interest of those who run the government and the interest of the average citizen which would challenge any reservation we might have raising questions about our identity, our role in the society and our priorities (Zinn, 1991). This, depending on our various levels of understanding, would also stand to the extent deception is possible by a government and how susceptible we will be as the masses. To broaden our capacity to detect deception, we should expand our knowledge base; the more one knows, the harder it will be for someone to manipulate information out of context and the more likely one will be able to detect a fabrication (Caddell, 2004). But we must be careful because typically all deceit carries with it an element of self-deception and almost all deception involves to a greater or lesser degree a willingness on the part of the deceiver to be themselves a party to the deceit-to allow themselves to be deceived (Malpas, 2008). However, deception can only be recognized when we retain a sense of truth, so it is crucial that we keep our commitment to our sense of truth, because otherwise according to Malpas (2008), we lose our engagement with ourselves, others, and the world, and we lose, not only our sense of ethics, but we lose a sense of ourselves, of others, of the world. We need to appreciate that even after accepting the general basis for deception and truth in politics, when it really matters our opinions and acceptance vary; that is to say that ones sense of what deception and truth is and how much we will tolerate it comes from, as used in the premise to this essay, how we understand ourselves, our society and our world. In the political arena, the tragedy is that we cannot have perfect freedom or virtue at the same time (Drury, 1996). But what we can strive towards would be a world where deception would not be a means to justify the end and where truth will remain an honourable ideal and politics is not synonymous with deception but with the genuine intention for effective governance. general definition for deception explore how deception is present in our lives and how that affects the amount of deception involved in politics. deception is necessary in politics, and sometimes beneficial (and sometimes not), and this is because we as the general public allows it so. Drawing from the Machiavelli and Strauss schools of thought on how deception is an integral part of politics- and examining this claim through the case studies of the Vietnam and Iraq wars- the reason politicians use deception is because it is sometimes more desirable than the absolute truth and thus it is easier to exploit and appeal towards the human conditions deep inclination towards self-deceit.

Plagiarism: A Very Serious Offense :: Education Teaching

Plagiarism: A Very Serious Offense Plagiarism is a very serious subject to talk about. It doesn’t sound like it is that big of a deal but very serious things can come out of it. Students could lose scholarships and get kicked out of school for something as simple as copying someone else’s work. Students should learn the rules and regulations of the school ,that they are attending, about plagiarism.[1] That’s basically what plagiarism is; copying someone else’s work. The true definition of plagiarism is â€Å"Using someone else’s ideas or phrasing and representing those ideas or phrasing as our own, either on purpose or through carelessness.†[2] There are many different ways of remedying this problem. One way to fix this situation is to paraphrase and that is to really put the information that one may obtain into his or her own words. This way can be a double-edged sword, so to speak. Putting someone else’s ideas into your own words can be very tricky, because if one follows the original material to closely it is considered plagiarism. Only if the paraphrase correctly says the same thing as the original in the student’s own words is the paraphrase not thought to be plagiarism. Another way to correct plagiarism is to quote and give credit where credit is due. If the student takes someone’s own words and uses them in a paper he or she better put quotation marks around the quote and disclose to whom the quote belonged to. The last thing a student can do to avoid plagiarism is to check over their paraphrasing and quoting to make sure that they haven’t missed anything that may make their paper violate the plagiarism rule. Always cite sources used to gather information and sources used to incorporate graphs, tables, and etc. into the paper. There are many reasons why students choose to plagiarize. These students in general are students that seem to procrastinate or do the easiest thing possible which is to just copy something from someone who has already done their research on the subject.

Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis: Report Essay

Joseph J. Ellis is a well-known historian. He earned his Bachelor’s degree from the college of William and Mary, and his masters and Ph.D. at the University of Yale. Ellis is currently a full time professor of the Commonwealth at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In addition to Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation Ellis has written many books and editorials. His books include; The New England Mind in Transition: Samuel Johnson of Connecticut (Yale University Press, 1983), School For Soldiers: West Point and the Profession of Arms (Oxford University Press, 1974), Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (W.W Norton and Company, 1993), After the Revolution: Profiles of Early American Culture (W.W. Norton & Company, 2002), and American Sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1998), which won the 1997 National Book Award. Ellis also won the Pulitzer Prize for History for Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. The subject of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation focuses on the lives of the Founding Fathers and how they affected America then, and today. Ellis’s thesis is that there has always been turmoil when it comes to states’ rights and the balance of po wer, but the American Revolution was ultimately successful due to the bonds between the founding brothers. His motives for writing the book is to show why, â€Å"these events and achievements are historically significant because they shaped the subsequent history of the United States, including our own time† . Ellis uses many primary sources to support his claims in Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. For instance, he uses many letters from the characters in the book. The book also includes many quotations from the founding brothers. Ellis also uses many secondary sources. He uses many biographies to help give evidence, including many biographies on each character in the book. Some of these biographies include; Alexander Hamilton by Broadus Mitchell, Aaron Burr by Milton Lomask, James Madison by Irving Brent, Benhamin Franklin by Carl Van Doren, and many more. The majority of reviewers for Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation thought very highly of Ellis’s writing in this book. Many reviewers suggested for all audiences to read this book, including al l levels of education. T.J. Shaeper, of St Bonaventure University in New York, stated that, â€Å"Ellis is deeply steeped in the  literature, and his style is crisp and full of subtle ironies†. Benson Bobrick of The New York Times, observed that, â€Å"this is a splendid book-human, learned, written with flair and radiant with a calm intelligence and wit. Even those familiar with the Revolutionary generation will, I would warrant find much in its pages to captivate and enlarge their understanding of our nations fledgling years† . H. M. Ward, from the University of Richmond, believes that, â€Å"the author succeeds in his aim to extract essential meaning from large-scale topics. The lively narrative reassesses the pivotal roles of the seven men and their intertwining relationships† . Gilbert Taylor generalized that â€Å"Ellis essays are angled, fascinating, and perfect† . These reviews all show how greatly reviewers feel Ellis did on this book. One author had a very interesting opinion about how Ellis saw the â€Å"Founding Brothers†. Benson Bobrick, of The New York Times, analyzed that, â€Å"as Ellis sees it, the founding brethren not only cre ated the American Republic but held it together throughout the volatile and vulnerable early years by sustaining their presence until national habits and customs took root† 3.. This statement shows that, not only did Ellis view the founding fathers as the creators of the â€Å"American Republic†, but also as the backbone to America’s success in the years to follow. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation is a well written narrative about America’s founding fathers and the years that followed the Revolutionary War. Ellis’s book is appealing to anyone who is interested in learning about the roots of our founding brothers. The book is also well written in the aspect of not being long and drawn out into one big story. Instead, Ellis breaks the book down in to six stories that talk about different situations with American historical figures. Ellis uses more than one type of historical writing throughout the six stories. He uses social, economic and political types of history throughout this book. Overall Joseph J. Ellis showed the significant role the leaders played in the founding of our country. Each character that Ellis brings forth in a story had a great impact not only on America then, but also where America’s nation is concerned today. Ellis also shows the importance of knowing about the roots of the founding fathe rs of our nation. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation is not only informative, but also compelling in its stories to  keep the reader intrigued. Bibliography Books Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2002. Reviews Shaeper, T.J. a review of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis. Library Journal (October 15, 2000). Bobrick, Benson. â€Å"The Brethren,† a review of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis. New York Times Book Review. (10 December 2000). Ward, H.M. a review of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis. Choice (February 1, 2001). Taylor, Gilbert. a review of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis. Booklist (October 15, 2000).

Conservative vs. Liberal

Conservative vs. Liberal Dimitri Khago PSY/201 Sunday, August 05, 2012 Mariah Degruy Conservatives vs. Liberals Not just as Americans but as human beings we all want the same basic things in our daily lives. We all seek freedom and yearn for prosperity. We all seek for what is fair in life and not just our lives separately, but the lives of our nation’s people. We want less people to suffer as much as possible, especially our children. We all seek the best for our health being. We all want a crime free nation and crime free streets in our communities.We all want a freedom to speak and voice our opinions; yet the one major key argument is how do we achieve all of these? With all that has been going on in our nation’s economy, we begin to analyze one of the very most important, yet controversial political issue that we are facing: Liberal or Conservative? Although we are united as a whole nation, but when concerning our nation’s political policies we are very much divided. Each of us has our own beliefs and our own opinion, but the beauty of this is that this is what makes this country.This belief was instilled in our bloods from the day this great nation was formed, by our political forefathers up until now. We sometimes call these beliefs Left or Right based on the political spectrum. The political spectrum We have learned to become conservative toward the nation, our nation’s people and our nation’s policies, as well as we have learned to become liberal toward the nation, our people and our nation’s policies. Which is right you might ask, that all depends on every individuals different view and opinion to do what is right and best for them?Conservatives and Liberals differ on what they believe is correct for the government. They seek different essential needs, different government program support, different social views, and very different economic views. As humans we all seek the same basic needs to live. These needs are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness a well-known phrase from the United States Declaration of Independence. We all have the right to lead our own life in which we so choose. We all have the right to have our belief and make our own decisions and stand to our own judgments.The most important matter is that we have the right to do whatever it takes to make ourselves feel happy without harming anyone one stepping over the boundaries of others. In order to protect our individual human rights the bill of rights were established. These laws which allow the people the ability to live by these deserved rights as a human being are what distinguish us from a free person and one who is not free. If one is convicted of a felony these particular laws spoken of are no longer valid to them – the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, and the right to bear arms are all void.Although some states are adjusting these laws to their own liking, you as a criminal are no longer privil eged to take part in these opportunities because of the crime committed, they are therefore taken away from you â€Å"†¦Other states may permanently ban felons from voting even after being released from prison, parole, and probation, and having paid all their fines. †(State Felon Voting Laws). There are many programs in which our government runs, and many of these programs are the split between the conservative or the liberal side.Liberals seem to view their government better as a larger government and support those programs which make this a reality. These include many programs, but one in particular is welfare. In the eyes of a liberal, this program is looked very highly upon. It helps those in need the ability to stand on their feet and not be out on the street. Although ideally this is a great help, but nowadays in our country, many people seem to take advantage of this opportunity and cheating the rest of society who need this help.With the educational program, a li beral supports not only public schools and a higher teacher salary, but also smaller classroom for the students. They support the idea that the classrooms should not be thirty-plus children, but also smaller more controlled environment† Vouchers take money away from public schools. † (Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. ). Now if you were to ask a conservative about education, they believe in the art of competition â€Å"School vouchers create competition and therefore encourage schools to improve performance. (Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. ). Schools should be all private so that they compete with lower costs and the parents have the opportunity to decide where they want their child to attend, and what kind of education they want for their child. Another program a conservative strongly believes in is canceling all the failed social support programs. Why should a country hold on to a program that is not helping anyone that is in need of the assistance, but financially supporting those well off, and are working and supporting their own families.Although being in the twenty-first century has expanded our view upon socialistic views, conservatives feel that we should not change our ruling on marriage and that it must stay traditional between a man and a woman. Since America was founded on grounds of religious freedom, and the Bible was and is our most highly looked upon views, conservatives feel that we shall stick to these traditional views and not support the idea of abortion or embryonic stem cell research.One must not abort a child, since that is the same as murder â€Å"Abortion is the murder of a human being. † (Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. ). One must also not participate in stem cell research since that too is destroying a life. This is where the argument comes in on the Liberal side. Liberals believe it is not up to us to decide if marriage shall stay between a man and a woman, what is so wrong with a man and man marrying or a woman and woman?Since this country was found on the principles of freedom and the rights to make our own decisions, the personal lives of Americans shall not be dictated by the government because of what they think is right. It has not yet been proven that a fetus inside a woman is a child or a fetus. The argument remains that a child is only a child when it takes its first breath, or that a child is a child when it is conceived. Shouldn’t the mother decide if she wants to give birth to this fetus?She will be bearing all the pain, so it should be her right to decide â€Å"A woman has the right to decide what happens with her body. A fetus is not a human life, so it does not have separate individual rights. † (Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. ). Now if you can save a life wouldn’t you? If you aren’t hurting anyone or anything with embryonic stem cell research, then scientist should be able to harvest these stem cells to help a life â€Å"†¦Stem cell s derived from embryos in the very earliest stages of development; these cells have long been thought by scientists to have an xtraordinary potential for alleviating the suffering caused by conditions ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's disease to spinal cord injury. † (Gold). Money is what runs the country, one thing these two political stances have in common are the want and need for more jobs. A conservative wants the federal government not to tax the rich as high and should spend so much less. These big businesses should get the tax breaks they want and deserve to increase and generate their revenue, so that they can stimulate and keep the economy stable and grow to be much stronger.Liberal’s on the other hand believe in quite opposite of the conservative behalf they believe that the rich should be taxed more than the poor since they can afford to pay a little extra money in order to have a greater government â€Å"The less government we have, the more liberty we have. † (Amy). They also approach with saying that these big businesses should be taxed more and pay a larger amount of income tax from their profits to help support and provide for Medi-Cal, Medic-Aid, and Welfare.In conclusion regardless on which of side of the political spectrum you stand with; either you are a conservative or a liberal, at the end you center all your opinions to your own political beliefs based on your own personal ethics. With all that has been going on in our nation’s economy, we begin to analyze one of the very most important, yet controversial political issue that we are facing: Liberal or Conservative? You must decide on your own what you feel the essential needs are, government program support, social support, or the economic support you feel your country shall provide you with.References Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. (2005). Retrieved from http://www. studentnewsdaily. com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/ State Felon Voting Laws. (2012). Retrieved from http://felonvoting. procon. org/view. resource. php? resourceID=286 Amy, D. J. (2007). A Guide to Rebutting Right-Wing Criticisms of Government. Retrieved from http://www. governmentisgood. com/feature. php? fid=14 Gold, R. B. (2004). Embryonic Stem Cell Researchaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Old Controversy; New Debate. Retrieved from http://www. guttmacher. org/pubs/tgr/07/4/gr070404. html