Democratic and Non Democratic System Essay Example

Democratic and Non Democratic System Essay Example Democratic and Non Democratic System Essay Democratic and Non Democratic System Essay In democratic system people are participating in political and decision making process without considering their race, color, physical ability such as Scandinavian countries. They are able to decide on their destiny directly or through their representatives. Each individual have their votes and these votes are effective and able to change decisions. There is no lumber on their choice and government can not mobilize citizens to pro-government relies; in contrast people are being mobilized by themselves or non governmental organization to put a pressure on the government. However, in non-democratic regimes people are not participating in political process and they were restricted by central body. The government has absolute powers over its citizens and nobody have a right to freely participate in election, decision making process and so on. The government dominated everything and every activity within the territory of its sovereignty. Furthermore, the government has an authority to practice some policy to mobilize people for particular purposes like demonstrating against some countries or the activity of opposition parties or to show of that their government is representing their dignity and choices (Allen, 2002). For instance, the former Iraqi regime restricted people from voting and the government banned any anti governmental actions, tortured and jailed people especially women and mobilized people to pro-government demonstrations against the USA and Israel (Lasky, 2006). In democratic regimes the leaders and those who are governing country are elected by the community. The head of the state has not inclusive power, but there are some limitation on his/her authority that defined by the constitution. This constitution written by some expertise and passed through democratic and freely referendum that people directly voted for like Denmark, Australia, Estonia, Germany, Uruguay after the authoritarian regimes in 1946 (Schiller, 2009, p. 7). The authority circulated among the government apparatus like parliament, president and prime minister and decisions are collective. Likewise, there is a political pluralism and multi-party system that competes to achieve the majority of parliament seats and no one of them can control government. Parties are competing on the base of public goods, political reconciliation and values rather than monopolizing power (Dixon Senese, 2002, p. 550). Though, in non democratic system the country governs by a small group of people whether they are individual, military, family or one dominant party (Allen, 2002, p. 170). They absolute power and use it to their self interests and through this they achieve their personal desires. Fore example, in the dictatorship regimes, one individual on the top level decide on the destiny of millions of people without considering their likeness and wishes such as Hitler and Mussolini. Here, the president or prime minister doesn’t elected by people but they come to power through military coup or revolution. Also, in some places the government governs by the dominant family or tribes. The family gives the priority to its members and neglects other people to participate in the process of governing, also they use country’s resources and dominate the economy. This is very common in monarchy systems especially in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain. Controversy, one of the other features of non-democratic system is governing country by the Military, in this case â€Å"Human rights and democratic freedoms may be severely curtailed by the government† and the election is controlled by the government and opposition parties can not win or get the majority of votes due to the military intervention as Myanmar, Nigeria and North Korea (James et al, 1999). Finally, in some countries one party controlled the whole country and there is no alternative or opposition inside the government like communist countries such as North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam (Slater 2003, p. 98) In democratic system, government is a guardian to human rights protection and providing the best life condition to its citizens. The minority groups whether they are Religious group or ethnic group are living in the safe environment without government intervention to confine their activity and repressing them. Besides, they are participating in political process and their rights guaranteed from any threats by majority or any attempts to undermine their identity. However, in non-democratic regimes minority rights is absolutely under threatens of majority and the government exercise a tyranny and enmity policy toward them. They can not practice their religions beliefs and took part in political activities. In contrast there are many limitations on their freedom and most of the times they are in hazard because of majority groups that controlled the government apparatus such as Iran that authoritarian regime targeted Azeri, Kurds, and Bloch. In some countries the minority groups can not express their identity, speak and study in their language but all of these are controlled by the government, and they should submit the government regulation like Turkey which violated the right of millions of Kurdish minority and doesn’t give them a permission even to speak and study in their language (Democracyweb, 2008). Besides, in such non-democratic system government arrest politician and human rights activist, also jail them with out trial as Tibet in Chine. Individual liberty and free press are basic components of democratic system. People in democratic government express their opinion and make their choices. Furthermore, they can choose their religion belief, political ideology, sexual statue whether they are gay or lesbian and etc. In addition, they have organizational rights and they are able to create an organization and work independently. Also, their rights defined by the law and nobody can assault their freedom. Also, the government encourages more personal autonomy and support individual self-governing. Besides, they have a freedom of speech and press. People contribute in healthy democracy and create a good government, economic development and political accountability (Freedom House, 2009). However, in non-democratic government individual liberty and freedom of speech is diminished. There is no choice for individual and the government imposes political ideology and belief on them. Anybody who disobeys would face penalty, and there is no freedom for homosexuality. Besides, only those organizations permitted that work for the benefits of the regime. In addition, medias and newspapers are affiliated to the government institutions and publish articles that serve the government interests otherwise any contrary opinion is strictly forbidden. In democratic system there is a freedom of market and trading (Sewell, 2003). The government promotes private sectors and people can make their business and exchange their goods like the USA and liberal democratic countries. Nevertheless, in non-democratic regimes markets are monopolized by the government. There is no space for private sectors and competitive market is diminished and this lead to economic disorder which directly effects on the citizens life. Equality and rule of law are the crucial components of democratic government. Democratic government looks at its citizens in one eye and tries to enhance the standard of their living equally. Also, â€Å"each person has an equal say to determine the common legal, political and economic institutions that they live under† (Stanford University, 2009). Controversy, in democratic regimes law is superior and government should obey its legislature. Everybody is equal and treating equally and the executive should submit. The law is defined every citizen’s acts and reflect their interests. But, in non-democratic regimes the government makes disparity among its citizens, maybe support certain people or social class and serve them, simultaneously neglect others. Alternatively, there is a weak rule of law and doesn’t play a vital role and undermined by the oppressive government. Moreover, the government may pass a law or procedure that doesn’t reflect people’s interest like Kurdistan when parliament passed a law of polygamy without asking people which was not in favor of women (Ahewar, 2008), but they tolerated under the pressure of religious groups. All in all, the democratic system is about decision making and people’s participating in governing. It has components like collective decision, electoral participations, political pluralism, multi party system, minority rights, free markets, individual liberties, freedom of speech and organizational rights. But in no democratic regimes people are not self-governing and human rights and individual freedom is under threatened. The government and leaders are repressing minority groups, opposition parties and create inequality among their citizens. Besides, head of the government has a complete power to make any decision and law. Free media, newspaper and organizational activity are prohibited, also markets and economy is dominated by the government. Bibliography: Ahewar, 2008. Campaign to stop polygamy in Kurdistan-Iraq. (updated December 19, 2008). Available at: ahewar. org/eng/show. art. asp? id=671 [accessed May 2, 2009] Bobbio N. , 2006. Democracy and Dictatorship. 2nd ed. Cambridge CB2 UR, UK: Polity Press Christiano T. , 2006. Democracy. (Updated Jul 27, 2006). Available at: http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/democracy/ [accessed May 4, 2009] Democracy web, 2008. Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Country Studies – Turkey. Available at: democracyweb. org/majority/turkey. php [a ccessed May 5, 2009] Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 547-571. Available at: jstor. org/stable/3176190 [accessed May 7, 2009] Ellen G. 2002. Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. â€Å"Comparative Freedom House, 2009. Freedom of the Press. Available at: freedomhouse. org/template. cfm? page=16 [accessed April 22, 2009] James et al (1999). Militarized Nondemocratic System vs. Burma. (Updated October 9, 1999) Available at: burmalibrary. org/reg. burma/archives/199910/msg00808. html [accessed April 28, 2009] Lasky M. , 2006. Iraqi Women under Saddam. (Updated 24 April 2006). Available at: alterinter. org/article170. html [accessed May 5, 2009] Politics I: Governmental Systems, Democracy and Non-democracy†. 48-176 Schiller T. , 2009. Direct Democracy in Modern Democratic Evolution. Available at: www. tfd. org. tw/english/docs/Report_03_DM_P_03_14. pdf [accessed May 4, 2009] Sewell P. , 2003. Mixing Free Market, Minority Domination and Democracy Results in World On Fire. (Uploaded February 10, 2003) Available at: http://yaleglobal. yale. edu/display. article? id=929 [accessed May 9, 2009] Slater D. , 2003. Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 81-101. Available at: jstor. org/stable/4150161 [accessed April 8, 2009]

Free Essays on Modern Belief

Modern Thinking vs. The Holy Word The Modern belief is that today’s churches are mostly women and that a women preacher would better suite them. As we all know teachers are more effective if they have a similar background to the one’s they teach. Modern belief accepts the fact that there are women preachers and embraces the movement of women in the church. But as I research for myself whether or not the bible allows women preachers, the answer is as clear as daylight. It is clear to me that these women preachers foundation is strongly rooted in the Modern belief and not the word of God. I feel that if one chooses to follow the word of god than one must not pick and choose what part of that word they will follow. This debate is not whether or not what the bible says is true; it’s about whether or not the bible says it. In 1st Timothy Chapter 2 Verse 12 it states (as read in the International Version) â€Å"I do not permit a women to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.† In 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 Verse 34 it states â€Å"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law say.† Later in verse 35 of the same chapter, it states, â€Å" it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.† In 1st Timothy Chapter 3 Verse 2 it states that an overseer (the equivalent to a pastor) â€Å" Must be above reproach, the Husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach†. A man by the name of Rob Harrison writes that some of the greatest people in the bible were women (i.e.: Mary, Dorcus, Lydia, Phoebe, Eudia) but one of the things that made these women great was that they recognized the place that god had for them, and the honor that was bestowed upon them in their submission. It is not a question of men trying to hold back women for fear of competition. It’s about what God has set in order. He later writes, â€Å"People ... Free Essays on Modern Belief Free Essays on Modern Belief Modern Thinking vs. The Holy Word The Modern belief is that today’s churches are mostly women and that a women preacher would better suite them. As we all know teachers are more effective if they have a similar background to the one’s they teach. Modern belief accepts the fact that there are women preachers and embraces the movement of women in the church. But as I research for myself whether or not the bible allows women preachers, the answer is as clear as daylight. It is clear to me that these women preachers foundation is strongly rooted in the Modern belief and not the word of God. I feel that if one chooses to follow the word of god than one must not pick and choose what part of that word they will follow. This debate is not whether or not what the bible says is true; it’s about whether or not the bible says it. In 1st Timothy Chapter 2 Verse 12 it states (as read in the International Version) â€Å"I do not permit a women to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.† In 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 Verse 34 it states â€Å"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law say.† Later in verse 35 of the same chapter, it states, â€Å" it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.† In 1st Timothy Chapter 3 Verse 2 it states that an overseer (the equivalent to a pastor) â€Å" Must be above reproach, the Husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach†. A man by the name of Rob Harrison writes that some of the greatest people in the bible were women (i.e.: Mary, Dorcus, Lydia, Phoebe, Eudia) but one of the things that made these women great was that they recognized the place that god had for them, and the honor that was bestowed upon them in their submission. It is not a question of men trying to hold back women for fear of competition. It’s about what God has set in order. He later writes, â€Å"People ...

Medical Terminology Research Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Medical Terminology Research Assignment - Essay Example Examples of a medication error is in the use of a long-acting prescription cough medicine. "Reports indicate that health care professionals have prescribed Tussionex for patients younger than the approved aged group of 6 years old and older, more frequently than the labeled dosing interval of every 12 hours ("extended release"), and that patients have administered the incorrect dose due to misinterpretation of the dosing directions and the use of inappropriate measuring devices. Overdose of Tussionex in older children, adolescents, and adults has also been associated with life-threatening and fatal breathing problems" (FDA News, 2008). Another example is the overdose of acetaminophen in drugs marketed as Tylenol and Datril. These drugs should not be taken more than the dose prescribed or seen on the label, and not more than the number of days as prescribed for. Due to these incidences, government and non-government organizations in the United States and in the United Kingdom directly "warned doctors that the use of abbreviations in medical notes is putting patients' lives at risk." (Pocack, N, 2008). In an effort to reduce the number of medication errors drastically, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) has issued a list of abbreviations, acronyms and symbols that should no longer be used. They did this because of the reported 44,000 and 96,000 deaths each year which were attributed to medication errors which have been shown to be due to flaws in parts of the system involving prescribing, repackaging, dispensing, administering, monitoring or a combination of two or more of the aforementioned. "Medication errors may result from single or multiple breakdowns in a system's continuum of diagnosing an ailment, planning a therapeutic regimen, prescribing and dispensing drugs, and administering the drug" (Philips J, 2001). The article reviewed medical errors for a 5-year span (1993-1998). They noted that the most common cause of these errors was the indiscernible handwriting in prescriptions making the abbreviations look like something else. Example of an error resulting from poor handwriting; the "ug" as in microgram may seem like "ml" as in microliter; example of an error due to wrong abbreviation is "BT" for bedtime may be comprehended as "BID" as in three times a day. These errors are found most frequestly in clinical notes, prescriptions and treatment charts which are all over the workplace. The use of these abbreviations should be kept to an absolute minimum if not any at all. They cause confusion and present a risk to patients. Similarly, on the same goal to minimize medication errors, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) in 2003 created a list of "Do Not Use" abbreviations (IMSP List, 2003) which establishes a standard for abbreviations and terms used. And in 2005, the JCAHO suggested the Patient Safety Event Taxonomy which could facilitate a common approach for patient safety information systems (Chang A, 2005). This taxonomic standardization scheme hopes to make it known to everyone that there is an existing standard set of words and/or phrases which are to be used, and no other in medication writing or prescription writing. In Canada, they too have shown that

Development of U.S Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Development of U.S - Term Paper Example Hamilton suggested that, as the government did not have the money available to buy the stock, it could be loaned to the government by the bank itself. However, Jefferson rejected the idea on the basis that it would be unconstitutional, since the government did not have the right to form corporations. This issues represented the idea of loose against strict construction of the constitution. Jefferson’s argument was based around the argument that any action not enshrined in the constitution as therefore automatically unconstitutional. Hamilton, on the other hand, took a more fluid view of the constitution, arguing that the government holds the power to take any action which is not specifically banned by the constitution. This view takes into account changes in society since the writing of the constitution. In order to set up a regular source of income for the government, Hamilton also set up the Tariff. This not only had the effect of increasing government revenue but also of protecting manufacturing in the U.S. It was therefore significant as a protectionist policy. This was to create a rift within the Federalists. Meanwhile, the issue of national debt, first exemplified in the establishment of the National Bank, was creating more tension between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson strongly believed that public debt and government borrowing was a curse because it would place a serious financial strain on future tax payers. Indeed, he wished to see the constitution amended to remove the ability of the government to borrow. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed that public debt could be a useful tool. He aimed to use the money generated through the tariff to offset the extremely high debt inherited from the old government by reissuing bonds. He also wanted state debt to be assumed by the government, in order to further benefit from tariff revenue which was federal. The tariff, however, was

American Politics in the Context of Obama’s Election and First 100 Days Essay Example for Free

American Politics in the Context of Obama’s Election and First 100 Days Essay The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States is a watershed in the history of American politics. In a country were blacks were once prohibited from voting just because of the color of their skin, his ascent into the White House is indeed a milestone. Obama’s victory is often attributed to several factors, including changes in voting behavior and public opinion and constant media exposure. Popular support of his regime did not end with the election hype – a 2009 Associated Press-GfK poll revealed that about 48% of Americans were satisfied with the economic outcomes of the Obama presidency’s first 100 days (Philstar. com n. pag. ). The rise of the Obama regime had a tremendous impact on American politics. It brought about the prospect of women and minorities gaining a greater voice in political institutions. But Obama’s first 100 days in office told a different story. His first 100 days revealed that the substance of his regime remained largely the same as that of George W. Bush’s. This just goes to show that in the context of Obama’s election and first 100 days, American politics changed its style but retained its hegemonic and elitist nature. Winning the nomination proved to be a greater challenge for Obama than winning the general elections. Because of a national political machine attached to her and her husband, Hillary Clinton was initially chosen by the Democrat Party to become its presidential candidate (Ceaser, Busch and Pitney 15). Although Obama was young, charismatic, cerebral and self-assured, the Democrats were apprehensive about his lack of experience in the political scene (Ceaser, Busch and Pitney 16). This weakness would probably not sit well with the American electorate, who were desperate for a leader who could rectify the damaging mistakes of the Republican administration (Ceaser, Busch and Pitney 15). But shifts in the economic and demographic profile of American voters rendered Obama a more suitable presidential candidate than Clinton. As of 2004, about 56. 6% of American voters were below 30 years old (Dahl n. pag. ). Majority of these individuals grew up using the Internet as an indispensable tool for work, study and leisure. When the Clintons staged their last national campaign in 1996, the Internet was just a fledgling industry. Obama’s youth and tech savvy (he kept a Blackberry with him at all times), therefore, would make him more appealing to the aforementioned voter’s age group than Clinton (Ceaser, Busch and Pitney 106). Obama must have been aware of these advantages of his – his election campaign involved mainly the utilization of the Internet. By April 2007, he already had 1,543,000 â€Å"friends† in his account in the social-networking website MySpace. com. In sharp contrast, Clinton only had 41,500 people in her network (Dupuis and Boeckelman 123). In the spring of 2008, Obama had at least 1 million â€Å"friends† in Twitter, while Clinton only had 330,000. Although they had the same number of Facebook â€Å"friends† during this period, the website’s largest pro-Obama group had over 500,000 members, while the largest Facebook group that supported Clinton only had 30,000 members (Tapscott 252). Furthermore, Obama’s rhetoric reflected the American public’s disillusionment with traditional political ideologies. His slogan, â€Å"Change You Can Believe In,† appealed to voters because it did not bombard them with highfaluting dogmas. Rather, it showed them that â€Å"change† meant exploring for new solutions to problems. The American people did not have to make do with traditional solutions which Obama believed have already failed them in the past. For instance, he is constantly criticized for his relative youth and limited high-level government inexperience. Obama downplayed this attack by claiming that â€Å"Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience, and yet have engineered what I think is one of the biggest foreign policy failures in our recent history† (Dupuis and Boeckelman 123). Through this argument, he pointed out that adherence to convention is not always the best for the nation. There are instances when the government and the people must work together and come up with new solutions. In addition, Obama created a firm connection between himself and the people by letting them know that he also underwent their plights. In his campaign speeches, he often used his experience as the son of a working woman and as the husband of a working woman in order to show to the people that he knew how it felt to be in their shoes (Leanne 52). He knew how it was to be poor, marginalized and to work hard just to keep ends meet. Thus, his cynicism towards conventional ideologies – he and so many other Americans remained impoverished despite their application. Given such a populist and down-to-earth campaign strategy, it was no longer surprising if Obama won a landslide victory in the 2008 national elections. But his first 100 days in office revealed that his regime was essentially the same as that of George W. Bush’s. Obama’s first 100 days revealed the â€Å"right-wing character of his administration and the class interests that it serves† (Eley n. pag. ). If there was any difference at all, it was the approach – Bush assumed a warmonger-like stance to obtain the presidency, while Obama adopted a populist one. Obama continued the Bush administration’s militarist and aggressive foreign policy. Although he promised that he will all American troops out of Iraq, troop levels in Iraq remained virtually unchanged. Furthermore, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and even extended it to Pakistan. Worse, he proposed a defense budget worth $664 billion – believed to be the largest appropriation for military spending in American history (Eley n. pag. ). The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay remains open, despite Obama’s pledge to eventually close it down. As a result, its inmates are at risk of being shipped to US military prisons such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they can be tortured and or killed in secret. Under the guise of â€Å"moving on,† he blocked all investigations and or criminal prosecution of parties that were responsible for the torture of detainees in US military prisons across the world. Obama’s government also intervened in the procedures of several court cases in order to deny habeas corpus to detainees in US military prisons in Afghanistan (Eley n. pag. ). While Obama was busy perpetuating Bush’s foreign policy, the American economy further deteriorated. Mounting layoffs took place, along with wage cuts, home foreclosures and depreciation of real estate value and retirement savings. These developments, in turn, resulted in escalating hunger and homelessness. But instead of creating concrete solutions to put an end to these calamities, the Obama administration used billions of dollars in public funds to bail financial institutions such as AIG, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch out of bankruptcy. Worsening the situation was that these banks were discovered to have been doling out huge portions of the bailout money to their executives as â€Å"bonuses† (Eley n. pag. ). It is very ironic that Obama, a black man who experienced growing up poor and marginalized, would end up perpetuating the repressive and anti-poor policies of his predecessor. But what Obama did reflected the recourse that the US most probably resorted to in order to steer itself from the economic crisis – tighten its grip over the Third World. It is during the current economic crisis that the US needs unlimited access to the natural resources of the Third World more than ever before. Thus, the Obama administration’s promise of â€Å"change† was replaced with the de facto continuation of the Bush regime. Works Cited â€Å"AP Poll: After Obama’s 100 Days, US on Right Track. † 24 April 2009. Philstar. com. 4 May 2009 http://www. philstar. com/Article. aspx? articleId=460799 publicationSubCategoryId=200. Ceaser, James W. , Andrew E. Busch, and John J. Pitney. Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics. New York: Rowman Littlefield, 2009. Dahl, Melissa. â€Å"Youth Vote May have been Key in Obama’s Win. † 5 November 2008. MSNBC. 4 May 2009 http://www. msnbc. com/id/27525497. Dupuis, Martin, and Keith Boeckelman. Barack Obama: The New Face of American Politics. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. Eley, Tom. â€Å"Obama’s 100 Days. † 29 April 2009. GlobalResearch. ca. 4 May 2009 http://www. globalresearch. ca/index. php? context=vaaid=13419. Leanne, Shel. Say It Like Obama: The Power of Speaking with Purpose and Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008. Tapscott, Don. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is changing Your World. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008.

Affirmative Action :: essays research papers

World War One  Account for the feelings of hostility towards the Austria-hungry Empire by Serb nationalists in 1914:  Austria was what stood in the way of progress of the Serbian nation. Serbia was a direct threat to the survival of the multinational Austrian Empire and for that reason Austria felt it necessary to thwart Serbia’s plans for growth and development. The Serbs desired more land, especially a coastline with an all important sea port, Austria denied them this by, in the peace treaty of 1912, creating a new country between Serbia and the coast, Albania. Austria also had Imperial control over several Slavic states, to which she denied national self-determination. The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria in 1908, and the subsequent threat of war by the Empire had also been a major factor in creating the hostility between the two sides.  Assess the extent to which Germany provoked the war of 1914:  The Actions and policies of Germany before 1914 were largely provocative towards the other powers of Europe and thus a major factor in the build-up to war. With the Accent of a new Kaiser, Kaiser William II to the throne and the retirement of Chancellor Bismarck Germany embarked on a series of aggressive reforms and developments to her foreign policies. Kaiser Bill himself was threatening to the other leaders. His proud, militarist and power-hungry features, caused him to be viewed in a questionable light and the policies he instigated for Germany caused the same reaction. Central to the foreign policies of Germany was Weltpolitik (world policy), which involved the move from a continental power to a world power through colonial and naval expansion. Chancellor Bismarck had prevented Germany from threatening the other Empires by her foreign policies but it wasn’t long before Germany’s determination for a ‘place in the sun’ drew the attention of Britain and France. Her aggressive grabs for colonial acquisitions, her rapid naval expansion and increasing military strength were seen as, not only a direct threat to their own individual positions within Europe but as an attempt at world domination, particularly as Germany’s international position was already strong. This created enormous tension that spread through all other nations and caused them to alter their own foreign policies and military status in answer to the threat from Germany. Thus Germany was largely responsible for the stress of the arms race and desperate desires for colonial expansion in the other powers, which created tension that largely, contributed to the outbreak of war in 1914

A Civil Action Review

A Civil Action Essay Jay Lee 9-8-09 In the movie â€Å"A Civil Action†, the environmental problem was that trichloroethylene and silicone was placed into the water in the town of Woburn. It happened through a tanning company pouring chemicals on the hides of animals and it seeping out. The company also placed a lot of barrels with the dangerous chemicals into the ground and it seeped out into the wells of the town. The damage it caused to the environment and to the people was a huge amount. It poisoned the town and children were killed because of it. The chemicals caused the children to get Leukemia and they died. The people blamed the companies Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace & Co for neglecting proper cleaning habits. This movie showed that humans really need to practice good habits or humans will not be able to survive. One tanning company poisoned an entire town. If everyone was like the tanning company, everyone would be dead by now. People really need to practice good habits because we cannot live in a world that is polluted by dangerous chemicals. The earth cannot become like the town of Woburn. We cannot continue to pollute the earth or we will harm ourselves and each other. People also need to know what they are dumping into the earth. People have to continually study what they are dumping into the earth or they may end up getting sued and hurting people. Jan Schlichtmann found out a lot about what happens to people and the earth after studying the harmful effects of the chemicals that were being dumped into the town of Woburn. People need to study these things because the earth cannot take the harm from the chemicals nor can the people. The earth is all connected and it was shown in the movie. The chemicals from the plant were dumped into a ditch. The chemicals traveled through the soil into the groundwater. The chemicals then reached the wells of the community. From there the people drank the water. One action can affect everybody. The earth is all connected somehow and putting something harmful in it is just hurting everyone and everything. The earth does not take a problem and just magically make it disappear, it stays within the earth and people need to find a way to do something better or everyone suffers. People alter the planet a lot. In the movie, just a tanning company polluted the ground water and killed people because of it. â€Å"A Civil Action† showed a lot of things that dealt with people hurting the planet. People should have to pay because they are responsible for more than just hurting people. The environment is important to people along with animals. It affects everything people do. In the movie people were forced to come together to do something about it. The people were sick of facing trials and watching the deaths of children because of the chemicals in the water. It really makes people do things about them and environmental problems are serious. They have to be dealt with quickly or it may hurt current generations and future generations. People may not be able to fix the problems we make today in the future. Environmental problems are serious and need to be dealt with quickly.