Friday, January 24, 2020

The Cold War and Reagan Essays -- Essays Papers

The Cold War and Reagan Topics What was the cold war? What were the causes? The Cold War at Home. -The U.S. involvement. What major roles did President Reagan serve in the cold war? A cold war is defined as "a conflict between nations for national advantage conducted by political, economic, and psychological means instead of direct military action." The Cold War defined by the same source was determined to be "the contest for power between the communist nations headed by the Soviet Union and the nations of the West headed by the United States that began after World War II"(Barnhart & Thorndike, 198). Causes of the Cold War included the struggle between conflicting values, those of Democracy in the West and statism in the East. After WWII the re-establishment of Eastern European countries destroyed in the war led to much disagreement about governmental structures, the West wanted Democracies with capitalist systems while the East (USSR) wanted a communist regime. The USSR would then be able to use the countries as buffer states against any further attack. This attack on the Soviets that might come would not take long to go through the buffer states protecting them against the new mechanism of war. World War II had created fear in the Soviets, mainly because of the use of the Atomic Bomb, and therefore they pushed towards nuclear technology. The label "iron curtain" was placed on the barrier existing between the Soviet bloc and the rest of the world, this idea was pushed by Winston Churchill to further British power in Western Europe. Forty-six years of a blind war followed and the West and the East fought "a war of nerves." As soon as World War II had ended threats of war with the Soviet Union beg... ...The Cold War was fought through the build up of arms, technology, and psychologically on the home front with a battle of nerves. Works Cited Internet Sources - http://ac.acusd.edu/History/20th/coldwar8.html - http://ac.acusd.edu/History/20th/reagan.html - http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~phealy/foreign.html - http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~phealy/mccarthy.html - http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~phealy/yalta.html - http://www.tntech.edu/~mww/www/reagan.html - http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/glimpse/presidents/html/rr40.html - Barnhart, Clarence L., Thorndike E.L., Thorndike Barnhart Advanced Dictionary, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1974. - Cannon, Lou. President Reagan: the Role of a Lifetime. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991. - Wills, Gary. Reagan’s America. New York, Viking Penguin, 1988.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Richard Brandt

Richard Brandt: Rule Utilitarianism Chapter two in our book Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment covers different philosopher’s views on Rule Utilitarianism and how it is applied to misconduct and unlawful acts. In Richard Brandt’s discussion he raises three questions that should be addressed when identifying our American system of punishment. What is justifiable punishment for a criminals past actions? What are good principles of punishment? What defenses should be used as good excuses to keep someone from being punished? Our actions should be guided by a set of prescriptions the conscientious following of which by all would have maximum net expectable utility† (Brandt, 1972). In Utilitarianism they choose the set of rules or practices that would produce the greatest net expectable utility if everyone followed them.Net Expectable Utility is a more positive outcome for a higher percentage of the population. Brandt believes our system of punishment is based on three assumptions: (1) Fear of punishment deters criminal behavior. (2) Imprisonment or fines make repeat offenders less likely. 3) Imprisonment stops the criminal from harming society while that person is in prison or incarcerated. â€Å"Punishment is itself an evil, and hence should be avoided where this is consistent with the public good. Punishment should have precisely such a degree of severity that the probable disutility of greater severity just balances the probable gain in utility (less crime because of more serious threat)†(p. 94). I have to agree with Brandt on this view because if the punishment does not fit the crime, criminal behavior is sure to be more prevalent.I’m a firm believer in scaring the malicious minds into acting lawfully and abiding by the law in order to keep the majority of the public safe. Brandt says that the cost should be counted along with the value of what is bought. This means to me that the punishment HAS to equal, if not be greater , then the crime. He also says that many criminals will go undetected and because of that some penalties will have to be so severe that the risks outweigh the gain in whatever the crime might be.Another agreeable point Brandt makes is that the more serious crimes should carry the heavier penalties not just for prevention of the crime but also to motivate the criminals to commit a less serious rather then a more serious crime. To make sure that the same punishment be inflicted on any social status, and that the same suffering is felt from the crime, Brandt says that heavier fines would be given to a richer man then to a poorer man. If a rich man were to receive the same fine as a poor man it may barely give him any suffering at all.While if a poor man met the same penalty financially as a rich man he may remain in debt for the remainder of his life. Brandt then begins to speak Jeremy Bentham and of such â€Å"excuses† that would not make a person criminally liable for a crime. He first mentions that a man who committed a crime that was not yet a law cannot later be punished for it. I have to agree here because you aren’t breaking the law if it isn’t one yet. I also, however, believe that if that prior â€Å"non-law† is severe enough and the evidence is still applicable in court then the person can be tried and found guilty after the fact.His second excuse is that the law had not yet been made public. In order for the public to know they are performing a unlawful act they must first know that what they are doing is against the law and can result in punishment and fines. The third excuse is that if the offender was an infant, insane or intoxicated they should also be excused of the crime. I think that underage and insane offenders may have a legitimate excuse, and the same may go for the intoxicated but in order for the intoxicated to be excused from punishment, it must not be voluntary intoxication.Bentham then says the offender can b e excused if they were ignorant of the possible consequences and thought they were acting in a lawful way. I don’t agree with this view because it is the citizens responsibility to know that he or she is acting unlawfully and what the consequences of their actions may be. â€Å"I didn’t know I couldn’t do that† is something police officers hear all the time and if they let everyone who said that to them go free they’d probably be out of a job. Bentham’s final excuse is â€Å"that the motivation to commit the offense was so strong that no threat of law could prevent the crime† (Brandt, 1972).I believe that some offenders get angry enough to ignore the consequences of the crime they about to commit but this is still not excuse for breaking the law and the law should still be applied to these people. How would a judge be able to determine if someone was acting maliciously or out of pure emotion? Richard Brandt states that Bentham’ s legal defenses need some amending. He says that not punishing in certain cases will reduce the amount of suffering brought to the public by the law and that by not punishing in all of these cases will cause a â€Å"negligible increase in the incidence of crime† (Brandt, 1972).Brandt says that the utilitarian is committed to defend the concept of â€Å"strict liability† in order to get a strong deterrent effect when everyone knows that all behavior of a certain sort would be punished. When speaking of impulsive actions that lead to criminal actions Brandt says that people who commit impulsive crimes in the heat of anger don’t think about the consequences of their action and therefore would not be deterred by a stricter law.He also says that these people are unlikely to repeat the crime so that a smaller sentence should be given to them in order to save a good man for society. I like this idea but I find it hard to agree with completely. Who is to say which crim es are impulsive and which crimes are premeditated? Of course, some circumstances make it obvious which are impulsive for example, a man saving a small child or woman from a kidnapper and killing them in the process, but many crimes can be called impulsive and therefore let a man who isn’t telling the truth receive a lesser punishment for his crime.Richard Brandt says that some say utilitarianism needs to view imprisonment for crime in the same light as quarantining and individual. He uses the example of someone being quarantined after being diagnosed with leprosy. They are taken away from public for the greater good of the public in order to not spread disease. We cannot treat criminals the same however. Criminals need to be shown punishment for their crime so going to prison cannot be made comfortable to them.It has to be a time of sorrow and pity so that it both fears prospective criminals and prevents criminals from becoming repeat offenders. Most criminals will be allowe d back into society after severing their time, lepers will never see society again. â€Å"There is a difference between the kind of treatment justified on utilitarian grounds for a person who may have to make a sacrifice for the public welfare through no fault of his own, and for a person who is required to make a sacrifice because he has selfishly and deliberately trampled on the rights of others, in clear view f the fact that if he is apprehended society must make an example of him† (Brandt, 1972) My favorite part of this section is when Richard Brandt compared the utilitarian view of punishment to that of a parent with a child. A parent lets the child know of the rules, about how to be safe, and about right and wrong. The child must know of the bad act before he or she can be punished for it. A parent will give a more severe punishment to their child according to what they have done to break a rule.The parent establishes rules for the â€Å"future good of the child† (Brandt, 1972). All this is done to make life at home tolerable and to ensure that the future of the child is a bright and successful one, punishment is an essential part of every one of our lives and whether we are avoiding it or being put through punishment, it is for the greater good. WORKS CITED Brandt, Richard. (1972). Rule utilitarinism (iii). In G Ezorsky (Ed. ), Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment (pp. 93-101). Albany: State University of New York Press

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

What Do You Do Best College Interview Question

This question overlaps a bit with another common interview question, What will you contribute to our campus community? Here, however, the question is more pointed and perhaps more awkward. After all, you can make a wide range of contributions to a campus community. To be asked to identify just one thing that you do best is far more limiting and intimidating. As we think about a winning response, keep in mind the purpose of the question. Your college interviewer is trying to identify something that you are passionate about, something that you have devoted time and energy to mastering. The college is looking for something that sets you apart from other applicants, some skill or talent that makes you the unique person you are. Is an Academic or Non-Academic Answer Best? If asked this question, you may be tempted to use it as an opportunity to prove that you are a strong student. Im really good at math. Im fluent in Spanish. Answers such as these are fine, but they may not be your best choice. If, for example, you truly are good at math, your academic transcript, SAT scores, and AP scores already demonstrate this point. So if you answer this question by highlighting your math skills, you are telling your interviewer something that he or she already knows. The reason you have an interview to begin with is because the college has holistic admissions. The admissions folks want to evaluate you as a whole person, not as an empirical set of grades and test scores. Thus, if you answer this question with something that your transcript already presents, youve lost an opportunity to highlight a dimension of your interests and personality that cannot be gleaned from the rest of your application. Put yourself in the shoes of your interviewer. Which applicant are you most likely to remember at the end of the day?: The one who says she is good at chemistry or the one who has amazing skills making claymation movies? Will you remember the good speller  or the one who restored a 1929 Model A Ford? This is not to say that you should steer clear of academics, for the college certainly does want to enroll students who are good at math, French, and biology. But when given the opportunity, try to use your interview to highlight personal strengths that might not come across so clearly in the other parts of your application. I Dont Do Anything Really Well. What Now? First off, youre wrong. Ive been teaching for 25 years and I have yet to meet a student who isnt good at something. Sure, some students have no aptitude for math, and others cant throw a football more than two feet. You may be inept in the kitchen, and you might have a third-grade spelling ability, but you are good at something. If you dont recognize your talents, ask your friends, teachers, and parents. And if you still cant come up with something you consider yourself good at, think about these possible approaches to the question: Im an expert at failing. Read any article on the characteristics of successful people, and youll learn that they are good at failing. They take risks. They try new things. They make mistakes and hit dead ends. And heres the important part--they learn from those failures and keep trying. Successful people fail a lot.Im a good listener. This interview question might make you feel uncomfortable because it is asking you to boast about yourself. If you feel uncomfortable tooting your own horn, is that because you prefer listening to speaking? If so, great. The world needs more people who listen. Embrace your listening skills.Im good at smelling the roses. Sadly, Ive met many applicants to highly selective colleges who are so driven to succeed both academically and in their extracurriculars, that theyve lived high school wearing blinders. Are you the type of person who loves to pause and appreciate the world around you? A strong student who can also treasure a beautiful sunset or a quiet s nowfall is someone who has found a healthy balance in life. Embrace this quality. Avoid the Predictable Responses Some answers to this question are perfectly safe, but they are also remarkably predictable and tired. Answers such as these are likely to make your interviewer nod in a gesture of bored approval: Im very responsible. Great, but your interviewer doesnt know you any better after that response. Your grades already show that you are responsible, and you havent given your interviewer a new and interesting dimension to your application.Im a hard worker. See above. Your transcript tells your interviewer this. Focus on something that isnt obvious from the rest of your application.Im good at writing (or biology, math, history, etc). As discussed earlier, a response like this is perfectly fine, but its a lost opportunity. Youre likely to get asked what you want to major in, so use that moment to talk about your favorite academic subject. And again, realize that your transcript shows what subject you have mastered. A Final Word If youre like me, a question like this is rather awkward. It can be uncomfortable tooting your own horn. Approached correctly, however, the question gives you a great opportunity to present a dimension of your personality that isnt obvious from your application. Try to find a response that identifies something that makes you uniquely you. Surprise your interviewer, or present a facet of your personality and interests that will differentiate you from other applicants. More Interview Articles Master These Interview QuestionsAvoid These Common Interview MistakesCollege Interview Dress for MenCollege Interview Dress for Women