Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia Essay Example

Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia Paper Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev was and remains Russia’s most conscientious leader, who correctly identified problems within Russia and the first to initiate fundamental change, which would bring about sustained prosperity and stability within all aspects of Russia. In order to implement this, Khrushchev had either rejected previous policies for their failure or weaknesses to adequately work, in order to replace them with ones more functional at grassroots level, or to first produce policies that would allow initial growth to occur. It is these policies which have remained fundamental to Russia; though later leaders may have furthered or readjusted them, their initial purpose remained at the core of many later policies. Reforms were intended to produce an improvement in all elements of Russia’s state functioning collectively; with the intension of such policies providing the groundwork for their further development by later leaders and this is precisely what is noticed in succeeding offices, which saw an elaboration of certain elements of Khrushchev’s initial policies. It is these initial policies which laid the basis for further reform, which allow me to deem Khrushchev the most successful leader; as it was reformations implemented on his behalf, which provided the framework for further sustained successful development. An example of Khrushchev’s rejection of previous policies to function sufficiently and replace them with adequate ones, is the 20th party conference in 1956. Khrushchev spoke of a â€Å"new political thinking†, in which he made visible, that previous attempts to successfully implement â€Å"socialism† were ineffective. We will write a custom essay sample on Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer If Russia was to transgress from its current position economic, political and social instability it had to part with former ways in order to accomplish this. Khrushchev acknowledged that transgression to economic and social prosperity had to come at a price. Khrushchev largely knew that the Russian political spectrum had been manufactured and dictated by the sole decisions-making of one individual: Stalin. As A. J. P. Taylor writes: â€Å"Stalin alone made every great decision [2] Russia’s stagnation was confound, to the political momentum in which Stalin was the sole instigator. The concept of Stalinisation was one in which all elements of Russian diplomatic and civil expression where entranced in absolute totalitarian control by one man. Transgression in any direction was indentured, by that individuals own perception of development – be it even if it was or wasn’t justifiable or applicable; as-long as they deemed it just. As Khrushchev stated at the 20th party conference: â€Å"Stalin acted not through persuasion nd cooperation with people, but by demanding absolute submission to his opinion. †[3] It is therefore to no surprise, that the implementation of de-Stalinisation was pivotal in permitting development in Russia. De-Stalinisation was a political tool which permitted the political domain of Russia to freely express new political initiatives, without being restricted by fear of opposing the totalitarian regime. The infrastructure was not reformed by this process, rather re-opened: it was now liable to change. It is this fundamental principle which became immensely pivotal for the development of Russia. De-Stalinisation fragmented previous policies which were deem unbeneficial, so their reconstruction for a more prosperous one in which sustained abrupt industrial, agricultural, civil and diplomatic advances where sufficiently developed and maintained- could be achieved. The rejection of previous failings is an intellectual concept pioneered by Khrushchev and adopted by every successor of his; for its practical advantages. It allowed the person in power to reform certain elements of the state; by initially focusing of on the weaknesses of the current system, than providing an alternative structure, which was in direct comparison to the sole failures of the previous one, obviously superior though whether or not these advantages where correctly comprehended by such individuals, is a different matter all together. [4] The â€Å"thaw† was the first attempt by a communist leader, to alleviate tensions between ideological and social demands, with John Keen claims: â€Å"His [Khrushchev’s] greatest accomplishment was to end the reign of fear [5] Such policies are testimony of Khrushchev’s implementation of combating Long-term problems confronting Russia, as Khrushchev claimed: â€Å"we must help people to live well. You cannot put theory into your soup or Marxism into your clothes. †[6] The â€Å"thaw† was a reformation of the ideological constraints, that communism had previously put on the Russian people. Previous rule restricted the development of civil reform: working conditions and general civil liberty remained severely undeveloped. The constant shrift between restricted and relaxed censorship was a long-term problem persistent throughout Russian history. Previous attempts of totalitarian rule had proved to be of little benefit to the state; in certain instances it furthered dissidents towards the government by the populace. As repression of censorship was bound to frustrate the Russian people, who were continuously placed in direct comparison with the west, yet in reality societal functioning differed greatly between the two: especially in terms of freedoms. What we see here, is Khrushchev’s realisation that reformation of any aspect of Russia, goes hand-in-hand with each other. It is of little significance if industrial reforms take place for economic growth, if social reforms which accommodate those who take on such policies are poor: one is bound to affect the other, as they are not of equal standards. Such tactics are similar to that of Witte and Stolypin; who both saw economic growth accompanied by social reform. We see here Khrushchev being the first (within communism), to create the basis for civil reformation; in order for it to accompany other reforms, which go hand-in-hand with overall prosperity. Therefore Vladimir Putin, who indicates a return to authoritarian rule, whereby media production is censored and suppression of regional provinces (such as Dagestan and Chechnya’s) right to self-governing bodies, may indicate a leadership were comprehension of the consequences of totalitarian rule verses increased civil liberty, are not correctly identified. As Sakwa states, Putin’s Russian society is characteristic of a centralised â€Å"Soviet-style bureaucracy†: similar to Stalin. [7] However, a conclusion on Putin’s office is not comprehensive, as his government remains; still reforming elements of society. The â€Å"thaw† is a clear demonstration of the importance of state prosperity (economic growth), being interlinked with general reforms. The sole expansion of one aspect of the state (e. g. the economy), cannot adequately develop, as the overall environment of the state would still be lacking behind. These general reforms can be seen as the long-term problems of Russia: agricultural and social reforms. The major mistake of leaders is to solely focus on the economic aspect of Russia, while ignoring the possible social elements; consequently drifting attention away from the ameliorated conditions of one aspect, to poorer ones. This is precisely what Khrushchev – along with Witte and Stolypin – emphasised; if all aspects of Russia are not reformed equally, disdain for a condition which is improved, is displaced onto another condition that is less developed: consequently leading to possible anarchy. These persistent long-term problems had to be assessed equally with other pivotal reforms, in order for the state to progress; this is apparent in the rule of Nicholas II. Industrial growth was prioritised, with industrial output increasing from 810 in 1908, to 1165 in 1913; showing signs of stability. [8] Yet what remained prominent, was the fundamental issue of poor social conditions. [9] Consequently leading to upheaval and opposition: such as the Lena Goldfields Massacre (1912) and Bloody Sunday (1905). These were all expressions of discontent with the conditions at hand. [10] These matters were further ignored, to point were upheaval against poor conditions was common place in 1917; which saw the Petrograd protest leading to a string of events, that brought about the collapse of the Tsar. [11] Khrushchev’s point is further empathised here; possibly the Tsarist regime would have been better equipped, if it had improved such persisting issues equally: continuity of industrial, agriculture and social development. Historians Koenker and Von Laue concur with this view, claiming that Nicholas’ incompetence in meeting social and industrial demands, further intensified the already fragile situation. [12] If long-term matters were equally addressed, possibly the collapse of the tsarist regime could have been prevented. The tenure of Khrushchev saw the greatest attempt at reforming the economic system, into one which would pose the most benefit: such are the policies of democratisation and decentralisation. [13] Such policies were compelled by mid-1957. Between 1954-55 approximately 11,000 enterprises moved from central to independent control, May 1955 major planning and financial decisions were removed from state Moscow control, to republican hold: Russia had become decentralised. [14] Proportions of industry were also subject to the effects of decentralisation; with Moscow-based ministries replaced with sovnarkhozy: independent organisations, free to regulate industrial activity within their provenance. In turn, greater autonomy was given to the industrial spectrum. The purposes of these policies were not to transform the economic structure into a western one, but rather allow beneficial advancements to be made. Prior to Khrushchev, the economic system created by Stalin, meant that the majority of state revenue was derived from the exportation of grain and with state farms operating at a loss, an alternative was â€Å"necessary. †[15] Yet the economic system was so entrenched in collectivisation, that no other alternative was deemed possible. Decentralisation and democratisation were proposed alternatives by Khrushchev. These policies provided Russia with the basis for possible further economic reform: it initially reopened the economic system, by making it more flexibly in areas of production and management. The fact that Khrushchev’s relatively short tenure did not permit sustained development of the vast amount of his policies, may indicate why these policies did not produce substantial industrial growth initially. Rather if time was permitted, these policies could have been further developed and produced possible growth. Thus if Brezhnev’s tenure had experienced prosperity at the beginning of his office, it may be due to an elaboration of Khrushchev’s policies; with later stagnation resulting from a reversal of these policies. Statistics show an initial increase in production: such as iron output increasing by 56 percent during 1965-75 and then decreasing to less than 7 percent from 1975-85. [16] Furthered by Brezhnev’s later crippled economic output, prior industrial growth stagnated in 1970-80, falling to less than 2. 6 percent. Similarly the Soviet Union’s GNP had fallen from 5. 2 percent in 1970, to 2. percent in 1980. [17] It appears that the effects of decentralisation were beneficial and a reversal of such policies would therefore counter-track production: which is seen under the centralised economy of Brezhnev. [18] The fact that Khrushchev’s policies were contributing to industrial growth, was an indicator of its successfulness. Therefore what was the necessity of their reversal? Thereby allowing us to stratify Brezhnev’s tenure into two categories: continuity of success due to the Khrushchev era and poor economic leadership by Brezhnev; causing further economic stagnation. Likewise, Stalin’s Collectivisation process had failed to produce an economic structure of continuity, with state farms operating at a loss, since procurement prices which were set by the state, had hardly been increased since 1928. [19] Stalin was indeed conscious of this, stating to the party that they had become â€Å"dizzy with success†; however no economic alternative was proposed. [20] If centralisation proved economically ineffective, why were decision not taken to alter the cause of direction – similar to Khrushchev? Perhaps these are largely signs of a poor economic leadership, on behalf of Brezhnev and Stalin. Gorbachev’s office shows that Khrushchev’s policies were later adopted and furthered by his successors. Though these policies were not initially adopted, when Gorbachev acknowledged that the state was in a point of crisis, these policies were then re-implemented. This initial misconception, is seen in Gorbachev’s foremost policies, which akin to the predecessors of Khrushchev, perceived stability solely through economic expansion; as he stated in the Central Committee meeting: economic growth was â€Å"the key to all our problems [21] Though unaware that economic growth demanded general reformation, expected growth bore no noticeable gain and thus lead Gorbachev to recognise the necessity of Khrushchev’s earlier policies; that general reform accompanied economic expansion. Therefore the later office of Gorbachev saw a continuity and elaboration of Khrushchev’s primary policies. He re- engaged in the process of denunciation, stating at the 27th Party Congress: â€Å"readjustment of the economic mechanisms begins with a rejection Peaceful co-existence was revisited; seen in the agreement with the US, to destroy intermediate-range nuclear weapons and the approval of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. Moreover, the civil and economic reforms of glasnost and perestroika, were but a build up of Khrushchev’s initial policies of reforming communism and decentralisation. Though McCauley argues Gorbachev’s reforms were pivotal to the creation of a civil state, the question is whether these policies would have been perused, if Khrushchev would have not laid the framework for their development? Likewise to Gorbachev’s initial perspective, Yeltsin perceived stability to be through economic might. [22] Yeltsin provided state initiatives (vouchers), with the purpose of creating a new entrepreneurial class (oligarchs), which would increase privately owned corporations; in turn pose similar benefits as Kulaks. Such a class would evolve into the dominant force to allow the economic structure of Russia to transform to one similar to western lines; as Yeltsin stated: the vouchers were â€Å"a short ticket to the free market. The oligarchs creation, meant the majority of the state’s economic resources were tied within the oligarchs; yet they redirected their own resources in international investments, rather than Russia’s. The result was a misjudgement of the oligarchs function, as they produce no abrupt economic growth as hoped. Rather they stimulated the growth of a corrupt black market. Though these policies were unsuccessful, the fact remains that the previ ous failing economic structure was redeveloped to the point, were transgression to a new system which could be further developed, was conceivable. An identical question to Gorbachev is posed: would any change have been permitted, if Khrushchev did not lay the foundation for their development, as they were continuations of Khrushchev’s decentralisation policies? T. A. Morris and Alan Wood, hold a conventional view that soviet agricultural growth was the consequence of Stalin, though such a perceptive can be challenged [23] Khrushchev’s initial policies of â€Å"Thaw† fragmented the Russian infrastructure, thus allowing reformation to take form: in this context, agriculture. During the near end of the Stalinist era, collective farms were operating at a substantial loss; agricultural functioning was in need of redevelopment. [24] Khrushchev’s methods of agricultural melioration were not merely intended for economic gain; they posed the first signs of agricultural and social advances. Taxes and compulsory state quotas was reduced, private plot was reintroduced, wages amounted, surplus labour was rewarded not demanded and Stalin’s practically insufficient â€Å"collective farms†, were lessened of their power. 25] Such policies were furthered by the 1954 Virgin Lands Scheme: its primary concern being the pre-occupation of uncultivated lands within the state. [26] Between 1954-60, 41. 8million hectares of â€Å"virgin land† had been ploughed. [27] Agricultural production was officially augmented by 3 per cent in 1954, with state procurement of grain rising by 50 per cent annually during 1954-63: predominantly from the virgin lands scheme. 28] The significance is thus, agricultural production may not have experienced a boom like that of Stalin’s, yet for the first time in soviet history, it did not stagnate nor fluctuate: it stabilised throughout the whole of Khrushchev’s tenure – largely unparalleled with pervious or later leaders Stalin had told party delegates of â€Å"a new policy of eliminating the Kulaks † as they were perceived to be the reason for Russia’s agricultural Laxness. [29] It is these actions, which form the basis for Khrushchev’s argument in the de-Stalinisation speech. Were the Kulaks not of economical benefit, during and before the tenure of Stalin? The primary creation of the Kulaks by Stolypin, was for economic growth. [30] Khrushchev’s criticism was not on the idea of producing grain on a grand scale to export for an economic capital, in turn redirecting the capital to industrial expansion, rather the way it was implemented. Was it utterly â€Å"necessary†, to liquidate the most prosperous and agriculturally beneficial class in Russia? Where there no other alternatives, which would show the same output as collectivisation and yet keep this class? The Virgin Lands Scheme was the alternative solution pioneered by Khrushchev, yet the alternative agricultural strategy was always available. Collectivisation under Stalin, involved the mass consolidation of grain; under state control. In order to hasten the rate of state grain procurement, forceful measures had to be implemented; involving the genocide of Russia’s most prized agricultural labourers: Kulaks. The Virgin Lands Scheme removed the need for state interference in order to raise state grain procurement. The necessity of collectivisation is once again questioned, with Getty viewing it as a necessity and those such as Perry, believing it to be â€Å"a tragedy for Russia †[32] Khrushchev was once again at the forefront of deconstructing inadequate policies, in order to replace them with ones more beneficial; thereby allowing these newer policies to be of greater economic advantage, as they remove the weaknesses of previous policies (i. e. annihilation of the Kulaks). If Stalin’s own direct predecessor acknowledged such a scheme prior to taking the post of general secretary, why didn’t Stalin? Its benefits are evident: grain production would have increased and without the removal of the Kulaks, it could have further stimulated production. This could rather be a sign of not only Stalin’s but all Russian leaders’ ignorance, of Russia’s own economic and agricultural potential. Does not the fact that Khrushchev clearly realised this, indicate his superior economic strategising and leadership? The creations of Khrushchev’s policies of Detente and Peaceful co-existence, steamed from Khrushchev’s tenure into that of every succeeding leader: for the sheer benefits which these policies brought. Prior to Khrushchev, poor foreign relations between Russia, the west and America, confound Russia in continuous international conflicts; bringing a halt to economic and social development of the state. We only have to examine the predecessors of Khrushchev to understand this. Within the tenure of Lenin, social stability was prevented, as the state remained in constant battle with international forces, consequently bring about civil war. Moreover, John Griggs states, Lenin’s government never saw effective attempts at ameliorating the state’s improvised economic situation. The fact remains, that involvement in war prohibited development. A state in international conflict had to redirect its resources, from industrial expansion and/or social development, to defence departments; Stalin’s tenure is testimony to this. Though at the beginning priority was given to economic matters, during the later part (1939 onwards), all economic resources were redirected into military expansion and development, in preparation for war. Furthermore, tensions between the USSR and other western democratises during the office of Stalin, became so ripe it lead to the greater development of the Cold War. As Churchill claimed: â€Å"an iron curtain† was drawn between the USSR and the rest of the world. 33] It’s the removal of this â€Å"iron curtain† which remained fundamental to Khrushchev’s foreign policies: constant poor international relations had prohibited positive development in the USSR and if such relations continued, the Cold War itself would evolve into one that would bring the same demise as previous wars. Khrushchev installed Detente and peaceful co-existence, because of its necessity; Russia could not continue nor economically afford perpetual involvement in War. Thus leading to relations with America, Europe and even China, being reaffirmed rather in the case of China, begin development on a positive note. Consequently In 1963, after a bad harvest, grain was imported from America – later becoming a regular occurrence and feature of the improved Soviet-US relationship. [35] However, this is not to say that the Soviet Union was not subject to international tensions: like the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. [36] It can be argued that the Crisis was a contradiction of Khrushchev’s policies of Peaceful co-existence, as is posed the possible outbreak of nuclear war and an increase in international tensions. However, attention should be drawn to the outcome of the matter. After an initial warning by President Kennedy, Khrushchev agreed on the removal of nuclear missiles within Cuba and a S. A. L. T. [37] What is seen here is a pursuit for international peace, rather than an expansion on nuclear defences; which would prevent a similar occurrence in the future. Khrushchev’s development of positive foreign policies – or rather his approach as a peace maker are what gave Russia the framework to remain a superpower and allow development to occur; as if these policies were not initiated, the USSR would have seen a continuity in war which would have brought her to her knee’s sooner, rather than later. What does not allow us to solely focus on the tenure of Khrushchev to draw a comprehensive conclusion, is the relatively short period he remained in office. What remains problematic is the fact that policies which Khrushchev had implemented, were merely initiated in his tenure and developed in the that of others, and those that remained underdeveloped (such as the Virgin Lands Scheme), is the consequence of the lack of time, which Khrushchev had to firmly implement them. Moreover, Khrushchev’s policies did not cease at the end of his tenure, but were further developed in that of his successors. Examination of later economic, diplomatic and civil reformations by latter leaders, shows evidence of Khrushchev policies being further developed, not abandoned, in order to bring about change or maintenance of an aspect of Russia. Nowhere is this more evident, than in the tenure of Gorbachev; which saw an utter elaboration of Khrushchev’s economic and civil policies. I believe the continuity of the vast amount of Khrushchev’s policies into the office of later leaders, as self acclaimed success: they were adopted by leaders not because there was no alternative, rather because they were necessary policies. Therefore the one who first initiated these policies (Khrushchev), allows me to deem them, the most successful leader during 1905 -2005.

Freedom Writers

Freedom Writers Free Online Research Papers Erin Gruwell (Hilary Swank) is a first-time teacher who wants to make a difference. She has little idea of what shes getting into when she volunteers to be an English teacher at a newly integrated high school in Long Beach, CA. Her students are divided along racial lines and have few aspirations beyond basic survival. When Erin discovers how much of their lives are blighted by racial prejudice, she introduces them to books like The Diary of Anne Frank and begins to educate them for real; a process that culminates in the idea that each of them, like Anne, will keep a journal of their innermost thoughts. Over time these underachieving students begin to bond into a family of sorts. I really enjoyed watching Freedom Writers because it states the fact that no matter where you are, who you are, that you can get through issues in your life if you fight through them. Very good motivational film. I found it very inspiring, but very unrealistic. Most teachers are not qualified to do the things she did and Ive found that Freedom Writers has inspired some very untalented teachers to try to be like her. But, hey, if it worked for Erin Gruwell, then thats fantastic and good for her. This movie has a clichà © storyline, but I dont think that it was a bad movie, as it is a true story. I think that more stories like that need to be told, even if they do have a sappy ending. Also, this movie was a little slow-paced and redundant. Is anyone getting tired of the same old theme of a rich white girl going to go save inner-city children through making a difference? This movie has been done too many times and I would not waste my money to see something that I’ve already seen. Its like, get creative. I feel the same with all those interracial dance movies. A white kid learns how to dance with the other race kids and then they accept them because of how they dance blah blah blah. Its ridiculous! Research Papers on Freedom WritersStandardized TestingMy Writing ExperienceRacism and InjusticeThe Broken FamilyEssay on â€Å"I have a Dream† Dr KingAdvertising EssayHomer The Great Greek PoetDistance Learning Survival GuideAlbatross and Rimm of the Ancient MarinerCo-Educational vs. Single Sex Schools

The Consequences of the Norman Conquest

The Consequences of the Norman Conquest William of Normandy’s success in the Norman Conquest of 1066, when he seized the crown from Harold II, used to be credited with bringing in a host of new legal, political and social changes to England, effectively marking 1066 as the start of a new age in English history. Historians now believe the reality is more nuanced, with more inherited from the Anglo-Saxons, and more developed as a reaction to what was happening in England, rather than the Normans simply recreating Normandy in their new land. Nevertheless, the Norman Conquest still bought many changes. The following is a list of the major effects. Anglo-Saxon elites, the largest landholders in England, were replaced by Franco-Normans. Those Anglo-Saxons nobles who had survived the battles of 1066 had the chance to serve William and retain power and land, but many rebelled over contentious issues, and soon William had turned away from compromise to importing loyal men from the continent. By William’s death, the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was all but replaced. In the Domesday book of 1086, there are only four large English landowners. However, there may only have been around 25,000 Franco-Normans out of a population of two million when William died. There was not a massive importation of a new Norman population, just the people at the top.Much of the upper reaches of church government was replaced. By 1087, eleven of fifteen bishops were Norman, and only one of the other four was English. The church had power over people and land, and now William had power over them.Castles: Anglo-Saxons did not, in general, build castles, a nd the Normans started a huge building program in order to help secure their power. The most common early type was wooden, but stone followed. The castle building habits of the Normans has left a mark on England still visible to the eye (and the tourist industry is thankful for it.) The importance of receiving land from a lord in return for loyalty and service grew enormously under the Normans, who created a system of land tenure unmatched in Europe. Quite how homogenous this system was (probably not very), and whether it can be called feudal (probably not) are still being discussed. Before the conquest, Anglo-Saxons owed an amount of service based on regularized units of land holding; afterward, they owed service based entirely on the settlement they had achieved with their overlord or the king.The idea that a person held two types of land – his ‘patrimony’ / family land which he had inherited, and his extended lands which he had conquered – and the idea that these lands could go to different heirs, came into England with the Normans. Familial relationships, of heirs to parents, changed as a result.The links between Scandinavia and England were deeply severed. Instead, England was brought closer to events in France and this region of the continent, leading to the Angevin Empire and then the Hundred Years War. Before 1066 England had seemed destined to stay in the orbit of Scandinavian, whose conquerors had taken hold of large chunks of the British Isles. After 1066 England looked south. Increased use of writing in government. While the Anglo-Saxons had written some things down, Anglo-Norman government vastly increased it.After 1070, Latin replaced English as the language of government.The power of the earls was reduced after Anglo-Saxon rebellions. Earls now held less land, with correspondingly reduced wealth and influence.Royal forests, with their own laws, were created.Higher taxes: most monarchs are criticized for heavy taxes, and William I was no exception. But he had to raise funds for the occupation and pacification of England.A new court, known as the Lords, honourial or seigniorial, was created. They were held, as the name suggests, by lords for their tenants, and have been called a key part of the â€Å"feudal† system.Murdrum fines: if a Norman was killed, and the killer not identified, the entire English community could be fined. That this law was needed perhaps reflects on the problems faced by the Norman raiders.Trial by battle was introduced.Ther e was a large decline in the numbers of free peasants, who were lower class workers who could quit their land in search of new landlords. Far more English land was given to continental monasteries, to hold as ‘alien priories’, then before the Norman Conquest. Indeed, more monasteries were founded in England.Continental architecture was imported en mass. Every major Anglo-Saxon cathedral or abbey, apart from Westminster, was rebuilt bigger and more fashionably. Parish churches were also widely rebuilt in stone.

Argument for Euthanasia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Argument for Euthanasia - Essay Example Sometimes euthanasia refers to assisted suicide owing to the fact that a physician has to be involved in the act. I seek to defend the rule and existence of euthanasia in the contemporary society with much consideration of the impact that pain results to individuals. It is true that euthanasia relieves a patient from suffering prolonged pain especially due to diseases that are not easily treated. Euthanasia should be endorsed at all costs because it leads to easy death without necessarily letting an individual patient undergo long-term suffering occasioned by terminal disease. The proponents of euthanasia in the views of Soifer claim that the values of life encompass self- determination, which allows individuals, make proper decision in accordance with how they perceive good life (13). Individual patients have the rights of accepting to be under life sustaining technology or left to die. One is supposed to decide by oneself the nature of death he/she deems better as a way of alleviat ing suffering. In addition, ethics allow the family of the patient to call for euthanasia when it realizes that the victim may survive even after receiving series of treatment (Soifer 12). This may be viable especially in the conditions where the patient has become burden to the family in terms of medical care bills while posing no signs of improvement. The two modalities of assisted euthanasia should be applied depending on the circumstance that requires provision of assisted death to an ailing patient. The families of the patients suffering from terminal pains should always be allowed to opt for passive involuntary euthanasia to be carried on the patient. Considering the fact the family members of the patient are the ones who cater for medical of the patient, they should always be allowed to make decisions for doctors to overdose the patients or disconnect the patient from the sustaining machines. Practicing euthanasia on persons perceived to have little or no probability of survi ving should be approved for the act save governments and individual intimates of the patient some amount of money and revenue that can otherwise be enhanced in developing other sectors if economy. Endorsing euthanasia will mean increased death rates in an economy, which may lead balanced distribution of resources in an economy thereby stabilizing and strengthening the specific economy. Active voluntary euthanasia proclaimed by the individual patient under proper mental consciences. Active euthanasia bears great elements of self-rights and self-decision concerning the manner in which an individual plan to conduct his/ her life. In addition, every individual has expanse right to die and should not be deterred from deciding death if his/her decision to die does not pose negative effects to other people. It is explicitly wrong to let an ailing patient continue to suffer over a disease that has no possible cure at the time that he/she has expressed willingness to die. With the growing po pulation of ill people across the world to an extent that there arises immense shortage of health facilities, endorsing euthanasia will assist in evacuating the congested health facilities. When the terminally sick individuals continue to occupy beds and space, other patients who only suffer from curable diseases may lack and miss health facilities. I also stand to support the legislations formulated in Netherlands that supports practicing of voluntary euthana

A Journal opinion article Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 11

A Journal opinion article - Essay Example As compared to the same period last year, JP Morgan registered a reduction in bond trading revenue by 21%. Additionally, the bank revenue obtained from the mortgage reduced to 84%. Major aspect that caused the poor performance by the bank was due to uncertainties that surrounded the US economy as far as lending to consumers and trading volumes are concerned. Being one of the Wall Street banks to post the reduced earnings, JP Morgan indicates how the financial sector has been faced with difficulties in the first quarter of 2014. Additionally, majority of the businesses owned by the bank including the commercial lending and the credit cards indicated low profits. This resulted to reduced total revenue for the bank in the first quarter an aspect that may result in reduction of annual revenue if the trend of the low performance in the financial sector continues in the remaining quarters. According to the bank, the net income fell to $5.27 billion which is equivalent to $1.28 per share fo rm the $6.53bn, or $1.59 per share which was experienced in the same period in 2013. According to the analysts, the bank earning per share was expected to stand at $1.40 per share. However, this was not achieved due to the reduction in net revenue which experienced 8.5% fall to stand at $22.99bn while the bank expected total revenue to stand at $24.53billion. Similarly, in the premarket trading, JP shares reduced by 3.3% to sell at $55.50 deviating from $61 highest prices that the bank has maintained for the last 13 years. This is a major indicator of poor performance of the bank an aspect that may result to low level of trust from the customers as well as investors. Despite the low performance by the JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive officer indicates that the largest bank in US is creating confidence in the country’s economy. As the result of

Dynamics of Two Dimensional Projectile Motion

Dynamics of Two Dimensional Projectile Motion Experiment: Study of Projectile Motion SUMMARY Moving an object in a bilaterally symmetrical, parabolic path is called Projectile motion. The path followed by the object is called its trajectory (Boundless, 2014). Some of examples are as follows:- Firstly, projectile is dropping object from rest position; secondly, an object thrown vertically upward is also called projectile in the end, an object which is thrown at an angle upward to the horizontal is also a projectile (providing effect of air resistance is negligible). Furthermore, in projectile object that once projected or dropped remains in motion by its own inertia and is inclined only by the downward force of gravity (Anonymous, 1996). KEY POINTS OF PROJECTILE MOTION: Time of Flight, T: The time of flight depends upon two things that are angle of projection and initial velocity of an object. Moreover, the vertical displacement of an object will be zero when the point of projection and return will be on the same horizontal surface (Boundless, 2014). Symmetry: If the point of projection and return occur along the same horizontal surface means current motion is symmetrical in the vertical plane (Boundless, 2014). Maximum Height, H: When the vertical component of velocity, vy, will be equals to zero shows the maximum height of an object. Projectile goes against gravity as it moves up, so the velocity decelerates likewise velocity accelerates downward under gravity (Boundless, 2014). Range of the Projectile, R: Displacement in the horizontal direction is called range. Acceleration is absent in this direction and the line of range shown when gravity only acts vertically (Boundless, 2014). As shown in this image, range of projectile is independent of the forces of gravity (Boundless, 2014). OBJECTIVES The purpose of this experiment was to analyze the dynamics of two dimensional projectile motion. Moreover, this was done by providing a ball with a horizontal velocity and measuring the time of flight and range. Furthermore, check the systematic errors in the data by comparing the values of vertical and horizontal acceleration. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To follow the two dimensional motion of an object and to determine that the motion can be analyzed by considering the motion in each dimension separately. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To check the existing possible systematic errors by comparing the horizontal acceleration with expected value of zero and vertical acceleration with the accepted value for g. THEORY Figure above is showing the experimental setup displaying measured values of initial height, range and time of flight The ball According to the Newton’s first law of motion, there will be no acceleration in horizontal direction, unless a horizontally directed force acts on the ball. Ignoring the air friction, only force acting on the ball during flights is the force of gravity. The range is the horizontal distance, x, between the hooter of the launcher and the place where the ball lands. The range is given by x = (v0 cos à ¸) t, Where v0 is the initial speed of the ball as it leaves the hooter, à ¸ is the angle of inclination above the horizontal, and t is the time of flight. If the ball is shot horizontally (à ¸ = 0), then the cos à ¸ = 1 and the range is given by x = v0 t. The time of flight will be t = x / v0 [Equation 1] The vertical distance, y, that the ball falls in time t is given by y = v0y t + 1/2 g t2 where v0y = 0 thus giving y = 1/2 g t2. Substituting for time, t with equation [1] will yield EXPERIMENTAL METHOD Equipment required: 1: Science Workshop Interface 2: A photo gate motion sensor 3: Time-of-flight timing sensor pad 4: Projectile Launcher 5: A plastic ball 6: Measuring tape Experimental procedure: Firstly, set up the angle that you have to launch by using the protractor; angles are 0, 30 or 60. Secondly, with the help of ramrod set the ball into the launcher. Moreover, the most important point is setting the right range that you wanted to calculate that is short, medium or long range. After that adjust the time of flight sensor pad, open the software â€Å"Projectile Motion† on computer and activate the application. By pulling the trigger launch the ball; note the reading for the time of flight from computer and then by using ruler measure the range. Take measurements three times for each range (short, medium, long range). Furthermore repeat the same process and take measurements three times for each angle (short range at 30 and 60). QUESTION/ANSWERS How do the values for the time of flight for short, medium and long range distances compare when the ball was launched horizontally? Also compare the values with the theoretical value of time of flight at 0. How do the values for the time of flight in horizontal, 30 and 60 launch compare when the ball was launched (in short range)? DISCUSSION Object moving in both motions that is falling free under gravity and moving both in horizontal direction is called as projectile motion; both the vertical and horizontal motions occur simultaneously but they don’t depend on each other. Moreover, after inputting the diameter of the ball into Data Studio we began our first shot at angle 0 and then according to that adjusted the landing pad to start collecting data. Furthermore, during this process we were making sure that the launcher speed remains same in every shot and also its angle; there were no problems in recording the data. CONCLUSION Projectile motion is two dimensional motion under constant acceleration due to gravity. Moreover, it is not necessary that an object should be thrown with some initial velocity in the horizontal direction; it is clear that there is a relationship between the angle of takeoff and the distance from which ball is thrown. Furthermore, the motion of a projectile can be studied easily by resolving it into horizontal and vertical components which are independent of each other. STUDENT’S SUGGESTION We have learned many things from this experiment like to calculate total time of the flight of an object and the prediction of landing point of a projectile. Moreover, Projectile motion helps in hitting the target. In addition, some of the real life examples are as follows: A golfer needs to know at what angle above the ground the golf ball should travel to reach closer to the golf pot, there are many applications of a projectile. Real life applications of projectile include bullets on a straight spinning flight, rockets, and missiles. Furthermore, football kicked off by a player, a ball thrown by a cricketer and a missile fired from launching pad, all projected at some angles with the horizontal, are called projectiles. References Anonymous. (1996). the Physics Classroom. Retrieved 03 28, 2015, from physicsclassroom.com: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/What-is-a-Projectile Boundless. (2014, 12 12). Key Points: Range, Symmetry, Maximum Height. Retrieved 03 24, 2015, from boundless.com: https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/two-dimensional-kinematics-3/projectile-motion-42/key-points-range-symmetry-maximum-height-230-11284/ http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1brch=74sim=191cnt=1 http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~thomas/weblab/221_exp_procedures_spr2006/221_proced_Proj_mo_spr2006.pdf https://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2002summer/PHY251/Projectile.pdf https://www.google.ae/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=9cad=rjauact=8ved=0CE0QFjAIurl=http://engineering.nyu.edu/gk12/Information/RAISE_Workshop_PowerPointFiles/Projectile%20Motion.pptei=T0UUVfDSO9PLaNWogdgCusg=AFQjCNHOrhZXFDclOBiI89btpHAQIHCLWgsig2=CqlyKDLGcXo1QS-W7SHNow http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997fall/phy251/proj_mo.pdf https://www.google.ae/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=7cad=rjauact=8sqi=2ved=0CDoQFjAGurl=http://www.mssch.edu.hk/phy/lab/example/Projectile%20Motion%20Lab%20Report.docei=0WwVVfOHOpLdaNq0gMANusg=AFQjCNG8yUN-hLdBJj8YHOi1BSZHcXRJ8Qsig2=cw7jFYS9MqXH5KnSJXsnYQ https://www.google.ae/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=39cad=rjauact=8ved=0CE0QFjAIOB4url=http://www.rlasd.k12.pa.us/teachers/bsmith/Mr._Smiths_Physics_Classroom/Honors_Unit_4_files/Proj%20Motion%20Lab%20book.docei=yHUVVY39KoPzaN2pgbgCusg=AFQjCNEyanaLfh_BArpQ0408H7C5ZbDGFQsig2=snGyLOYUigF9iBf8o4I1dA http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997fall/phy251/proj_mo.pdf https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UiGi0B9NPZeliXzZeptQoKA8G-Zg9z87ejszD9nSeHw/edit https://prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/Projectile+Motion+Lab.pdf https://186734.wikispaces.com/file/view/IWB++Camera.pdf

How Does Owen Use Nature To Convey His Feelings About War? Essay

Wilfred Owen uses nature to convey his feelings in his poems, using many different techniques. In both the poems that I am examining, Exposure, and Spring Offensive, he’s uses nature to show pain and suffering. For example, in exposure, he uses brambles to convey pain; â€Å"Watching, we hear the mad gusts tugging on the wire, Like twitching agonies of men among its brambles.† This quote gives the soldiers the painful reminder that men have been killed easily by the barbed wire, and natures way of portraying barbed wire, is through brambles. The brambles symbolise pain, because brambles are obviously painful. This gives the reader a knowledge of what the soldiers are thinking of. Also this shows that by getting caught in the wire, that they are being held back from fighting, and this gives the soldiers a feeling that they have lost the war. Another thing that nature portrays is love and protection. Not all nature was used to portray pain. In Spring offensive, he uses several terms to portray love and protection; â€Å"And though the summer oozed into their veins Like an injected drug for their bodies’ pains,† This quote shows that that nature can be used to benefit the soldiers, by giving them strength to go on and fight. Nature can also benefit the soldiers, by giving them camouflage, and to protect them from harm, so that the German soldiers cannot see them. Another method that Owen uses to portray his feelings using nature, is the weather, in which he shows mood and feelings, cold weather representing hurt and pain. He uses cold weather a lot in Exposure; â€Å"We only know war lasts, rain soaks, and clouds sag.† This quote shows that the soldiers are waiting for attack and that there waiting will be long, but their fighting will be longer. They are saying that this is inevitable, like rain does soak, and clouds do sag. â€Å"Tonight, this frost will fasten on this mud and us, †¦and their eyes are ice, But nothing happens.† This quote proves that war is long and frustrating. This is saying that they have waited so long that the frost from the cold had killed them, not the war. This is a strong symbol, that nature is stronger and more powerful than war. I think this is one of the main reasons that Owen uses nature to portray his feelings, because it often has a stronger impact on the readers. â€Å"Till like a cold gust thrills the world At which each body and its soul begird And tighten them for battle. No alarms.† This quote has a tense feel about it because the cold wind represents harsh reality that they have to face, which is not what they have been told it was. This would make them uncomfortable, tense and nervous. I think that he uses this to deter men from going to war, because he was anti-war, and the men were being told thaat it was a walk in the park, all a big game. Owen wanted to tell the men about what war was really like. Aswell as cold weather, warm weather is used a lot in spring offensive, to show peace, strength and protection; â€Å"The sun, like a friend whom their love is done. Oh larger shone that smile against the sun. Mightier than his whose bounty these have spurned.† This quote shows that the soldiers get strength from the sun. As the sun comes up, they can feel the warmth, and see the light, which tells them that they are still alive. It gives them hope, because it its a conformation of there existence. Also is says that the sun is mightier than god, refered to as â€Å"his†. I think that this means that they would rather feel the suns warmth then die for their country. I think that the main reason that Owen uses nature to portray his feelings because it is an easy way of expressing deep emotions and feelings about a thing you feel strongly against a subject, eg: war. Owen’s expressions are strong, in the sense that they get his point across, and they are emotionally thought provoking, in the sense where they make you think about what is must feel like to serve, sometimes, against your will in something as horrific as a world war. I think that using nature to portray feelings and emotions, thoughts and views in poems is a very effective way.