Body Image

Today's media has become a huge benefactor for women in society's poor body acceptance. Although advertising aims to convince us to buy things, ads seldom portray people that look like us. The average female fashion model wears in-between a size two or four, while the average American woman wears a size 12 or 14. Although today's media portrays female models as alluring, and desirable by all men; it is also producing a â€Å"picture that is far removed from reality' and is fiercely â€Å"unreal, and unattainable† (452).Images of models in ads are often touched up, in order to disguise minor flaws or make the models appear even skinnier than they really are. These false body image ads, showing bodies that are not ell or representative of the general female population, have far-reaching effects. It might seem that it should be recognizable when an ad shows something not real; but we still tend to trust what is seen in the media and through that, body image can be easily confuse d. The constant barrage of unrealistically skinny women can stir up feelings of inadequacy, anxiety and depression.This is what leads to the development of eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, in today's young adult population. Even before young woman were influenced by the images of media; they were being influenced tit America's top selling manufactured doll since 1 959, Barbie. The average American girl between the ages of three to 1 1 , grows up surrounded by the Barbie body image. Not every child is influenced by the toys they play with; but young children can be easily influenced, especially by their toys.Toys are designed to allow children to practice for roles they will take on as adults; that's why housekeeping toys, doctor kits, toy pots and pans, and baby dolls were manufactured. Through play, children learn about the world and their place in it. What do Barbie's teach children about the world? They teach children that is it desirable to be extremely thin, and to s trive for an unrealistic body image. Research done by the AND show that 95% of those who have eating disorders are between the ages of 12 and 25.The AND also shows, that the mortality rate associated with anorexia nervous is 12 times higher than the death rate associated with all causes of death for females 15-24 years old. Remember; these young women likely played with Barbie dolls, multiple Barbie's around these young ages. Not only can the media stir up feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and depression; but so can an unrealistically proportioned doll, that is portraying to adolescence what women should be. Body Image Today's media has become a huge benefactor for women in society's poor body acceptance. Although advertising aims to convince us to buy things, ads seldom portray people that look like us. The average female fashion model wears in-between a size two or four, while the average American woman wears a size 12 or 14. Although today's media portrays female models as alluring, and desirable by all men; it is also producing a â€Å"picture that is far removed from reality' and is fiercely â€Å"unreal, and unattainable† (452).Images of models in ads are often touched up, in order to disguise minor flaws or make the models appear even skinnier than they really are. These false body image ads, showing bodies that are not ell or representative of the general female population, have far-reaching effects. It might seem that it should be recognizable when an ad shows something not real; but we still tend to trust what is seen in the media and through that, body image can be easily confuse d. The constant barrage of unrealistically skinny women can stir up feelings of inadequacy, anxiety and depression.This is what leads to the development of eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, in today's young adult population. Even before young woman were influenced by the images of media; they were being influenced tit America's top selling manufactured doll since 1 959, Barbie. The average American girl between the ages of three to 1 1 , grows up surrounded by the Barbie body image. Not every child is influenced by the toys they play with; but young children can be easily influenced, especially by their toys.Toys are designed to allow children to practice for roles they will take on as adults; that's why housekeeping toys, doctor kits, toy pots and pans, and baby dolls were manufactured. Through play, children learn about the world and their place in it. What do Barbie's teach children about the world? They teach children that is it desirable to be extremely thin, and to s trive for an unrealistic body image. Research done by the AND show that 95% of those who have eating disorders are between the ages of 12 and 25.The AND also shows, that the mortality rate associated with anorexia nervous is 12 times higher than the death rate associated with all causes of death for females 15-24 years old. Remember; these young women likely played with Barbie dolls, multiple Barbie's around these young ages. Not only can the media stir up feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and depression; but so can an unrealistically proportioned doll, that is portraying to adolescence what women should be.

Constantines Influence on Christianity

Constantines Influence on Christianity Free Online Research Papers While many have contributed to the growth of Christianity, one man was a key part of the legitimacy, acceptance and growth of the religion. He was the Roman emperor Constantine. Christians had been persecuted in the Roman Empire since the beginning of the religion. Constantine’s participation in the Council of Nicea and his implementation of Christian symbols in highly visible locations are the reasons that Christianity became the dominant religion in the western world. Constantine’s role in the council is why Christianity flourished. During Constantine’s reign, there were many social issues within the Roman Empire which Constantine felt had roots in the religious revolution of paganism and Christianity. These quarrels affected the prosperity of the Roman Empire. After years of infighting among leaders of the Christian church, the Roman emperor, Gaius Julius Octavius, also known as emperor Constantine, summoned all the Christian bishops to attend a council. The purpose of the council was to openly discuss and solve the problems that the differing views caused in the religion. The motivation for this action has been disputed by many, but most agree that Constantine felt a bond with the Christians that were being persecuted throughout the empire. The reason for the bond may have been due to Constantine growing up as a hostage in the east or his vision of the Christian cross on the eve of his most important battle (O’Grady 71). These factors played the deciding role in the decision of Constantine to cal l a meeting of the church. There had been many councils before this one, but none before had been called for by an emperor, and none had imperial authority. Constantine was intent on settling the disputes within the church for both economic and political gain (Payne 52). The council took place on Asia Minor on June 19th, 325 AD and lasted two months. Many Bishops from the west felt the meeting was of no concern to them; they held the populous power and underestimated the resolve of Constantine to settle the disputes at hand. Many bishops of the west were also outraged that the emperor had chosen such a distant local for the council; they felt the west was the center of the empire and this significant of a meeting should be held in the west. The western bishops also took this as Constantine publicly announcing his distain for the western empire and a display of favor for the people with which he identified with, the people of the east. Bishops from the Eastern Church were convinced this was their opportunity to be heard and their view of the Christian religion to be accounted for. The views of the bishops and the location of the meeting accounted for the turnout of the Council of Nicea, while 318 attended only six bishops and two presbyters of the bis hop of Rome were representing the west (Payne 59). The influential control held by the Eastern Church was not the only aspect of this council that was unorthodox. Never before had an emperor presided over a council of the Christian church. Constantine’s views on religion were â€Å"that it should be tidy with well defined lines of command† and his views of the men of the church was, â€Å"these men are bishops†, which was a status symbol of the time,† and these men, like all men, are riddled with flaws† (qtd. in Walker 14). These views along with his lack of tolerance for quarrels set a tone for the proceedings. As the council began, Constantine addressed the council by stating â€Å"he was glad to see them in harmony,† knowing they were in a bitter conflict. â€Å"I won my battles for the glory of God and to my dismay I hear there are divisions among you. We are here to fix it† (qtd. in Walker 14). At the beginning of the meeting, two antagonists came to the forefront. Arius, an outspoken bishop who had little tolerance for any beliefs that were not similar to his own and his fiery public speaking was cause for many of the council’s arguments. Athanasius, an older gentleman, was characterized as having an imposing physical presence, quiet during some disputes but with others he refused to compromise or to end the arguments. His actions led to numerous stalemates in the decision making process. Tired of the endless bickering, Constantine singled out the two men and had them removed from the council, Constantine then summoned the attendees to bring him all of their complaints and petitions he then threw them into the fire. These acts by the emperor left another large segment of the Christian faith unrepresented in the shaping of the religion (Bainton 92). During the remaining meetings of the council the emperor ruled similar to a judge. Constantine silenced all arguments t hat seemed arbitrary to him and rebuked all that spoke too angrily (Cowie 104). Constantine’s actions influenced the makeup and atmosphere of the council. The most dominating arguments of the council involved the beliefs in the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, also known as the Trinity. The Bishops debated over the relationship between the three entities. One segment of the church believed that God was superior to Jesus and therefore was subordinate to him, while the other segment believed that each entity had its own place and none was subordinate to the others (First 1). Constantine, not understanding or grasping the ideology behind the argument, placed imperial pressure onto the council to come to a solution or he would step in. The council came to the agreement that the son was equal to the father and the Divinity was established. Religious writings were also topics of disputes. Claims of a hierarchy pertaining to one writing versus another were highly contested and no group could offer concrete evidence to legitimize the scrutinized documents (Lane 1). Disputes over religious text lagged for days and with the urging of Constantine the council proceeded to discuss a system of validation for the writings. Constantine had very little knowledge of the writings or of the religion in fact, he was a life long pagan and only converted to Christianity late in life. The council decided to focus on the writings that held popular truth. Writings that contained elements that all could agree upon were validated. The council did not review all writings but the writings that failed to meet the set standards of the council, were burned by the emperor. Many believe that this was done by Constantine because he felt once the center of the argument were no longer around then they could no longer cause disputes. This action enraged many in the church and leaders felt Constantine had no authority to destroy their sacred texts (Brandt 1). To this day, historians and theologists believe that many books of supposed prophets were lost here. The Council of Nicea of 325 was plagued with numerous debates, but progress for uniformity within the church was achieved The council was able to establish the Nicene Creed, a statement that echoes the beliefs and duties of the bishops, the Twenty Cannons and the establishment of a continuing council whose goal would be to further debate and verify texts along with solidifying the religion. With Constantine’s influence over the council, he set in motion an ever progressing religion that would gain momentum and begin to spread. Constantine also influenced everyday life with the Christian religion, he placed XP on currency. XP symbolizes Jesus Christ in Roman moniker. This was done to help give the religion social acceptance within the empire. With the backing of the Roman Empire, Christianity blossomed (Cowie 14). Constantine’s involvement in laying the foundation for the success of Christianity arose primarily from the social and economic problems that were crippling the Roman Empire. Without his participation in the Council of Nicea the Christian religion would have never have gained such momentum. Many people in history have played large roles in the growth of the religion but none more profound than Constantine. Bainton, Roland H. The Horizon History of Christianity. New York: American Heritage, 1964. Brandt, Steven. â€Å"The Council of Nicea.† Steves Theology Page. 27 Jan. 2007. columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm. Cowie, Leonard W. March of the Cross. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. â€Å"First Council of Nicaea.† The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2003. Answers.com 27 Jan. 2007 answers.com/topic/first-council-of-nicaea. Lane, Anthony N.S. â€Å"The Council of Nicaea: Purposes and Themes.† 27 Jan. 2007. http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/council_nicaea.html. O’Grady, Desmond. Beyond The Empire. New York: Crossroads, 2001. Payne, Robert. The Christian Centuries. New York: W.W. Norton, 1966. Walker, Williston. A History of The Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1959. Research Papers on Constantine’s Influence on ChristianityBringing Democracy to AfricaBook Review on The Autobiography of Malcolm XCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite ReligionAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andQuebec and CanadaMoral and Ethical Issues in Hiring New EmployeesAppeasement Policy Towards the Outbreak of World War 2

How to Diagnose Toasted Skin Syndrome

How to Diagnose Toasted Skin Syndrome Toasted skin syndrome (erythema ab igne or EAI) has a few names associated with it, including hot water bottle rash, fire stains, laptop thigh, and grannys tartan. Luckily, although toasted skin syndrome is an ugly symptom, its not serious. Although it is not considered a burn, toasted skin syndrome is caused by prolonged or repeated skin exposure to heat or infrared radiation, whether mild or moderate. Specific causes may include hot water bottles or heating pads for pain relief, laptop computer exposure (such as on the battery or ventilation fan), and fireplaces. Other causes  have been due to car seat heaters, heated chairs and blankets, sauna belts, and everyday household appliances like space heaters or even the simple stove/oven. Diagnosis Diagnosing toasted skin syndrome is relatively easy. It can be diagnosed with two main points. First is the reticulated pattern of the discoloration, which should not be even. It is a mottled, sponge, or net-like pattern. Second, you should notice that it does not itch or hurt much, like moat rashes or skin injuries do. Mild itching and burning may occur temporarily but often fades.  If this diagnosis seems to meet what you are experiencing, then it is important to locate a heat source that the affected area of skin is often exposed to, and stop using it until your skin is healed. Who Is Most Likely to Have the Skin Symptom? Those treating themselves to some type of ailment, like a chronic backache, may be used to a repeated application of a heat source that may be causing this dermatologic issue. Toasted skin syndrome is also common amongst elderly individuals who may susceptible to  prolonged exposure to a heater, for example. There are also occupational hazards in various work environments depending on the profession. For example, silversmiths and jewelers have their faces exposed to the heat, while bakers and chefs have their arms bare. With laptop computers, the left thigh is most commonly affected. In fact, over 15 cases have been reported in 2012 where primarily 25-year-old women received the diagnosis. Thus, it is important to position the laptop in a safe place that doesnt touch the skin for too long, or at all, especially with powerful processors that reach high temperatures. Treatment There are several treatments available including medical options and physical modalities. Medically, the most important step is to eliminate the heat source immediately. For example, if you are using car heaters, turn off the heat entirely if you can; otherwise, lower the temperature as much as possible. Treating pain with over-the-counter pain relievers is important. Consider ibuprofen like Advil or Motrin, acetaminophen like Tylenol, or naproxen like Aleve. A topical therapy that includes  5-fluorouracil, tretinoin, and hydroquinone, is likely to work. Pure Aloe, Vitamin E, or walnut oil may also help with healing and pigmentation. Alternatively, there are also physical skin therapies available including laser therapy and photodynamic therapy. Medical help is especially important when there are signs of infection, increase pain, redness, swelling, fever, or oozing.  In this case,  antibiotics  and pain medication will likely be prescribed by a doctor. Individuals having the aforementioned issues with their diagnosis are encouraged to see their doctor or dermatologist. Otherwise, the skin should return to a normal condition in a few weeks.

The Causes and Aims of World War One

The Causes and Aims of World War One The traditional explanation for the start of World War 1 concerns a domino effect. Once one nation went to war, usually defined as Austria-Hungary’s decision to attack Serbia, a network of alliances which tied the great European powers into two halves dragged each nation unwillingly into a war which spiraled ever larger. This notion, taught to schoolchildren for decades, has now been largely rejected. In The Origins of the First World War, p. 79, James Joll concludes: The Balkan crisis demonstrated that even apparently firm, formal alliances did not guarantee support and co-operation in all circumstances.† This doesn’t mean that the formation of Europe into two sides, achieved by treaty in the late nineteenth / early twentieth centuries, isn’t important, just that the nations were not trapped by them. Indeed, while they divided Europe’s major powers into two halves - The ‘Central Alliance’ of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the Triple Entente of France, Britain and Germany - Italy actually changed sides. In addition, the war was not caused, as some socialists and anti-militarists have suggested, by capitalists, industrialists or arms manufacturers looking to profit from conflict. Most industrialists stood to suffer in a war as their foreign markets were reduced. Studies have shown that industrialists did not pressure governments into declaring war, and governments did not declare war with one eye on the arms industry. Equally, governments did not declare war simply to try and cover up domestic tensions, like the independence of Ireland or the rise of socialists. Context: The Dichotomy of Europe in 1914 Historians recognize that all the major nations involved in the war, on both sides, had large proportions of their population who were not only in favor of going to war, but were agitating for it to happen as a good and necessary thing. In one very important sense, this has to be true: as much as politicians and the military might have wanted the war, they could only fight it with the approval – greatly varying, maybe begrudging, but present - of the millions of soldiers who went off to fight. In the decades before Europe went to war in 1914, the culture of the main powers was split in two. On the one hand, there was a body of thought – the one most often remembered now - that war had been effectively ended by progress, diplomacy, globalization, and economic and scientific development. To these people, who included politicians, large-scale European war had not just been banished, it was impossible. No sane person would risk war and ruin the economic interdependence of the globalizing world. At the same time, each nation’s culture was shot through with strong currents pushing for war: armaments races, belligerent rivalries and a struggle for resources. These arms races were massive and expensive affairs  and were nowhere clearer than the naval struggle between Britain and Germany, where each tried to produce ever more and larger ships. Millions of men went through the military via conscription, producing a substantial portion of the population who had experienced military indoctrination. Nationalism, elitism, racism and other belligerent thoughts were widespread, thanks to greater access to education than before, but an education that was fiercely biased. Violence for political ends was common  and had spread from Russian socialists to British women’s rights campaigners. Before war even began in 1914, the structures of Europe were breaking down and changing. Violence for your country was increasingly justified, artists rebelled and sought new modes of expression, new urban cultures were challenging the existing social order. For many, war was seen as a test, a proving ground, a way to define yourself which promised a masculine identity and an escape from the ‘boredom’ of peace. Europe was essentially primed for people in 1914 to welcome war as a way to recreate their world through destruction. Europe in 1913 was essentially a tense, warmongering place where, despite a current of peace and obliviousness, many felt war was desirable. The Flashpoint for War: the Balkans In the early twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and a combination of established European powers and new nationalist movements were competing to seize parts of the Empire. In 1908 Austria-Hungary took advantage of an uprising in Turkey to seize full control of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region they had been running but which was officially Turkish. Serbia was livid at this, as they wished to control the region, and Russia was also angry. However, with Russia unable to act militarily against Austria – they simply hadn’t recovered enough from the disastrous Russo-Japanese war – they sent a diplomatic mission to the Balkans to unite the new nations against Austria. Italy was next to take advantage and they fought Turkey in 1912, with Italy gaining North African colonies. Turkey had to fight again that year with four small Balkan countries over land there – a direct result of Italy making Turkey look weak and Russia’s diplomacy - and when Europe’s other major powers intervened no one finished satisfied. A further Balkan war erupted in 1913, as Balkan states and Turkey warred over territory again to try and make a better settlement. This ended once more with all partners unhappy, although Serbia had doubled in size. However, the patchwork of new, strongly nationalistic Balkan nations largely considered themselves to be Slavic, and looked to Russia as a protector against nearby empires like Austro-Hungary and Turkey; in turn, some in Russia looked at the Balkans as a natural place for a Russian-dominated Slavic group. The great rival in the region, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was afraid this Balkan nationalism would accelerate the breakdown of its own Empire  and was afraid Russia was going to extend control over the region instead of it. Both were looking for a reason to extend their power in the region, and in 1914 an assassination would give that reason. The Trigger: Assassination In 1914, Europe had been on the brink of war for several years. The trigger was provided on June 28th, 1914, when  Archduke Franz Ferdinand  of Austria-Hungary was visiting Sarajevo in Bosnia on a trip designed to irritate Serbia. A loose supporter of the ‘ Black Hand’, a Serbian nationalist group, was able to assassinate the Archduke after a comedy of errors. Ferdinand wasn’t popular in Austria – he had ‘only’ married a noble, not a royal - but they decided it was the perfect excuse to threaten Serbia. They planned to use an extremely  one-sided  set of demands to provoke a war – Serbia was never meant to actually agree to the demands – and fight to end Serbian independence, thus strengthening the Austrian position in the Balkans. Austria expected the war with Serbia, but in case of war with Russia, they checked with Germany beforehand if it would support them. Germany replied yes, giving Austria a ‘blank check’. The Kaiser and other civilian leaders believed swift action by Austria would seem like the result of emotion and the other Great Powers would stay out, but Austria prevaricated, eventually sending their note too late for it to look like anger. Serbia accepted all but a few clauses of the ultimatum, but not all, and Russia was willing to go to war to defend them. Austria-Hungary had not deterred Russia by involving Germany, and Russia had not deterred Austria-Hungary by risking the Germans: bluffs on both sides were called. Now the balance of power in Germany shifted to the military leaders, who finally had what they had been coveting for several years: Austria-Hungary, which had seemed loathe to support Germany in a war, was about to embark on a war in which Germany could take the initiat ive and turn into the much greater war it desired, while crucially retaining Austrian aid, vital for the  Schlieffen Plan. What followed was the five major nations of Europe – Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, France, Russian and Britain on the other – all pointing to their treaties and alliances in order to enter into the war many in each nation had wanted. The diplomats increasingly found themselves sidelined and unable to stop events as the military took over. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia to see if they could win a war before Russia arrived, and Russia, who pondered just attacking Austria-Hungary,  mobilized  against both them and Germany, knowing this meant Germany would attack France. This let Germany claim victim status and mobilize, but because their plans called for a quick war to knock Russia’s ally France out before Russian troops arrived, they declared war on France, who declared war in response. Britain hesitated and then joined, using Germany’s invasion of Belgium to mobilize the support of the doubters in Britain. Italy, who had an agreement with Germany, refused to do anything. Many of these decisions  were  increasingly taken by the military, who gained ever more control of events, even from national leaders who sometimes got left behind: it took a while for the Tsar to be talked round by pro-war military, and the Kaiser wavered as the military carried on. At one point the Kaiser instructed Austria to cease trying to attack Serbia, but people in Germany’s military and government first ignored him, and then convinced him it was too late for anything but peace. Military ‘advice’ dominated over diplomatic. Many felt helpless, others elated. There were people who tried to prevent the war at this late stage, but many others were infected with jingoism and pushed on. Britain, who had the least explicit obligations, felt a moral duty to defend France, wished to put down German imperialism, and technically had a treaty guaranteeing Belgium’s safety. Thanks to the empires of these key belligerents, and thanks to other nations entering the conflict, the war soon involved much of the globe. Few expected the conflict to last more than a few months, and the public was generally excited. It would last until 1918, and kill millions. Some of those who expected a long war were Moltke, the head of the German army, and Kitchener, a key figure in the British establishment. War Aims: Why each Nation went to War Each nation’s government had slightly different reasons for going, and these are explained below: Germany: A Place in the Sun and Inevitability Many members of the German military and government were convinced that a war with Russia was inevitable given their competing interests in the land between them and the Balkans. But they had also concluded, not without justification, that Russia was militarily much weaker now than it would be should it continue to industrialize and modernize its army. France was also increasing its military capacity – a law making conscription last three years was passed against opposition – and Germany had managed to get stuck in a  naval race  with Britain. To many influential Germans, their nation was surrounded and stuck in an arms race it would lose if allowed to continue. The conclusion was that this inevitable war must be fought sooner, when it could be won, than later. War would also enable Germany to dominate more of Europe and expand the core of the German Empire east and west. But Germany wanted more. The German Empire was relatively young and lacked a key element that the other major empires – Britain, France, Russia – had: colonial land. Britain owned large parts of the world, France owned a lot too, and Russia had expanded deep into Asia. Other less powerful powers owned colonial land, and Germany coveted these extra resources and power. This craving for colonial land became known as them wanting ‘A Place in the Sun’. The German government thought that a victory would allow them to gain some of their rivals’ land. Germany was also determined to keep Austria-Hungary alive as a viable ally to their south  and support them in a war if necessary. Russia: Slavic Land and Government Survival Russia believed that the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were collapsing  and that there would be a reckoning over who would occupy their territory. To many Russia, this reckoning would be largely in the Balkans between a pan-Slavic alliance, ideally dominated by (if not entirely controlled by) Russia, against a pan-German Empire. Many in the Russian court, in the ranks of the military officer class, in the central government, in the press and even among the educated, felt Russia should enter and win this clash. Indeed, Russia was afraid that if they didn’t act in decisive support of the Slavs, as they had failed to do in the Balkan Wars, that Serbia would take the Slavic initiative and destabilize Russia. In addition, Russia had lusted over Constantinople and the Dardanelles for centuries, as half of Russia’s foreign trade traveled through this narrow region controlled by the Ottomans. War and victory would bring greater trade security. Tsar Nicholas II was cautious, and a faction at court advised him against war, believing the nation would implode and revolution would follow. But equally, the Tsar was being advised by people who believed that if Russia didn’t go to war in 1914, it would be a sign of weakness which would lead to a fatal undermining of the imperial government, leading to revolution or invasion. France: Revenge and Re-conquest France felt it had been humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 – 71, in which Paris had been besieged and the French Emperor had been forced to personally surrender  with  his army. France was burning to restore its reputation and, crucially, gain back the rich industrial land of Alsace and Lorraine which Germany had won off her. Indeed, the French plan for war with Germany, Plan XVII, focused on gaining this land above everything else. Britain: Global Leadership Of all the European powers, Britain was arguably the least tied into the treaties which divided Europe into two sides. Indeed, for several years in the late nineteenth century, Britain had consciously kept out of European affairs, preferring to focus on its global empire while keeping one eye on the balance of power on the continent. But Germany had challenged this  because it too wanted a global empire, and it too wanted a dominant navy. Germany and Britain thus began a naval arms race in which politicians, spurred on by the press, competed to build ever stronger navies. The tone was one of violence, and many felt that Germany’s upstart aspirations would have to be forcibly slapped down. Britain was also worried that a Europe dominated by an enlarged Germany, as victory in a major war would bring, would upset the balance of power in the region. Britain also felt a moral obligation to aid France and Russia because, although the treaties they’d all signed didn’t require Britain to fight, it had basically agreed to, and if Britain remained out either her former allies would finish victorious but extremely bitter, or beaten and unable to support Britain. Equally playing on their mind was a belief that they had to be involved to maintain great power status. As soon as war began, Britain also had designs on German colonies. Austria-Hungary:  Long-Coveted  Territory Austria-Hungary was desperate to project more of its crumbling power into the Balkans, where a power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire had allowed nationalist movements to agitate and fight. Austria was particularly angry at Serbia, in which a Pan-Slavic nationalism was growing which Austria feared would lead to either Russian domination in the Balkans, or the total ousting of Austro-Hungarian power. The destruction of Serbia was deemed vital in keeping Austria-Hungary together, as there were near twice as many Serbs within the empire as were in Serbia (over seven million, versus over three million). Revenging the death of  Franz Ferdinand  was low on the list of causes. Turkey: Holy War for Conquered Land Turkey entered into secret negotiations with Germany and declared war on the Entente in October 1914. They wanted to regain land which had been lost in both the Caucuses and Balkans, and dreamed of gaining Egypt and Cyprus from Britain. They claimed to be fighting a holy war to justify this. War Guilt / Who was to Blame? In 1919, in the Treaty of Versailles between the victorious allies and Germany, the latter had to accept a ‘war guilt’ clause which explicitly stated that the war was Germany’s fault. This issue – who was responsible for the war – has been debated by historians and politicians ever since. Over the years trends have come and gone, but the issues seem to have polarised like this: on one side, that Germany with their blank cheque to Austria-Hungary and rapid, two front mobilization was chiefly to blame, while on the other was the presence of a war mentality and colonial hunger among nations who rushed to into to extend their empires, the same mentality which had already caused repeated problems before war finally broke out. The debate has not broken down ethnic lines: Fischer blamed his German ancestors in the sixties, and his thesis has largely become the mainstream view. The Germans were certainly convinced war was needed soon, and the Austro-Hungarians were convinced they had to crush Serbia to survive; both were prepared to start this war. France and Russia were slightly different, in that they weren’t prepared to start the war, but went to lengths to make sure they profited when it occurred, as they thought it would. All five Great Powers were thus prepared to fight a war, all fearing the loss of their Great Power status if they backed down. None of the Great Powers was invaded without a chance to step back. Some historians go further: David Fromkin’s ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ makes a powerful case that the world war can be pinned on Moltke, head of the German General  Staff, a man who knew it would be a terrible, world changing war, but thought it inevitable and started it anyway. But  Joll  makes an interesting point: â€Å"What is more important than the immediate responsibility for the actual outbreak of war is the state of mind that was shared by all belligerents, a state of mind that envisaged the probable imminence of war and its absolute necessity in certain circumstances.† (Joll  and Martel, The Origins of the First World War, p. 131.) The Dates and Order of the Declarations of War

Financial Crisis Effects on America Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Financial Crisis Effects on America - Essay Example This essay stresses that the effect of the crisis evolved to a number of countries, and by the mid of 2008, the economic crisis had spread over an appreciated region, worldwide. Many countries with emerging economies felt the influence of the recession that had its manifestation in a number of ways including increased poverty level. Among the countries that experienced a hard hit were the South Africa, Turkey and Mexico. Some like China, however, managed to have a fair time during and after the recession since it records an appreciated rate of economic growth. This paper declares that the recession had emanated from a number of factors and got policymakers and investors unaware. Multilateral agencies and analysts of economic situations underestimated the effect of the financial crisis and the great depression, at the beginning. Signs as the high current deficits, mainly in the United States and United Kingdom, were a clear show that the economy was at under challenge. The lax financial regulation in the United States, coupled with the loose monetary policy experienced were among the different various signs of a financially unstable period. However, after Lehman Brothers experienced a collapse, the situation received attention from policymakers and investors. Investors, for instance, revised their strategies. Noteworthy is the transmission effect of the financial crisis to the country’s real economy. The effect of the real economy on occurs through five notable ways. The wealth effect on the real economy relates to the reduction in n et worth of households. The crisis experienced had considerable effects on the well-being of households in the United States. A significant number of households experienced financial distress because of the reactions to economic stress. The first three quarters of the crisis in 2008 experienced a substantial reduction in asset values for households (Bernanke 2008, p.1). The reduced stock value also reduced the net worth of households. There was a nota reduction in the prices of houses, as well. A significant percentage of households had little value in ownership of stock market holdings. Direct ownership of equities went down to a low record in 2008. Mutual fund holdings reduced and initiated the effect of reduced household net worth. The reduction in prices of stocks triggered a significant hit on households nearing retirement period. The wealth effect also reduced the level of consumption among since there was high need for households to make savings. The need for savings was prom pted by the urge to make up for the reduced value of wealth and maintain the level of life that households had, prior to the crisis. The confidence effect of the economic crisis relates to the implications on the portion of the population that lost wealth and experienced a reduction in asset value. May citizens underwent losses in the stock market. Other people experienced unstable credit ratings while others lost employment. These affected their level of commitment and prompted keenness in consideration of financial commitments. Their confidence level reduced remarkably, as they gained caution regarding the possibility of

Is bureaucracy irrational Reflect critically Essay

Is bureaucracy irrational Reflect critically - Essay Example Many large scale organizations follow a form of structure which is more systematic and legitimized policies. In fact, following a systematic structure in every organization is insisted by many of the management theorists, bureaucracy has gained significance among the development of theories and is frequently observed as a sub-section typical topic. The study of bureaucracy is studied as a new approach to organization and the business. Though the classical writers picked up their ideas and principles from practical experiences, their theories are also based on older basis of management concepts. Before we discuss about the rationality, we should know about Max Weber’s Bureaucracy and its key aspects. Max Weber is originally a German sociologist initiated a certain concern for bureaucratic structures in organization, when he was studying on power and authority as a main stream. This bureaucratic structure is the idea which to Weber almost came as a part of his study. He insisted that the key role played by the organization’s top decision makers brings about the change within the structure of management and also provided a steep rise to stable and standard administration procedures. The responsibilities and the tasks definitions played by the decision makers bring about these changes (Andreski, 2008). ... This social network of intellectuals in diverse disciplines helped create a flexible mind with the ability and tendency to take assorted points of view (Allan, 2005). The term bureaucracy has its own criticisms that it is not observed necessarily in depreciative formal organizations. Weber analyzed that bureaucracies’ are not the same quality followed in all organizations. He viewed a clear progress of bureaucracies are markedly visible as the profits of increasing in identifying order and level-headedness into the society and its life. Max Weber’s bureaucracy was one of the most successful organization structures in the last century and also regarded the perfection of bureaucracy. The key characteristics of bureaucracy are outlined below: Formal Hierarchy Every higher level in an organization controls the lower level, thus forming a hierarchy which forms a basis of centralized scheduling and decision building (Slattery, 2003). System of Structure: The rules and policie s made by the company permits decisions stated at high levels which in turn to be administered to the lower levels of the bureaucrats (Macionis, 2006). Work Specialization People are divided into several divisions on the basis of what kind of job they perform or the expertise they do. Work specialization allows people to do certain jobs in perfection (Macionis, 2006). Mission Focused Here, the purpose of the organization is of two means, focused above and focused below. If its main focus was to satisfy the suppliers, the panel or any group authorized it. If suppose, the focus lies towards serving the organization itself and some other internal processes like raising the profits high and approved

Litterature Review and bibliography Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Litterature Review and bibliography - Essay Example se, extreme changes in the room temperature including other ergonomic-related problems that may lead to the development of different types of Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) like the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome among others. (Buckle & Hoffman, 1994) Other factors such as physical stress related to illness or hormonal changes as well as emotional stress related to grievance due to the death or loss of a special someone may also increase stress at work. For the purpose this study, the researcher will gather peer-reviewed journals related to the probable causes of work-related stress and its impact over well-being of employees. To give the readers a better understanding of some medical terms used in the study, the researcher will provide the definition of words. For the literature review, the researcher will first discuss all the probable causes of work-related stress followed by repetitive strain injury, carpal tunnel syndrome and other work-related injuries. Since ergonomics study the impact of working environment in relation to stress and physical injuries related to the working conditions, the researcher will discuss the role of ergonomic analysts. Eventually, the negative health effects of work-related stress will be provided in order to give the readers a better understanding why health care practitioners should focus on preventing stress from work. Ergonomics – a scientific-based study that teaches the proper design of working environment and systems in relation to increasing the efficiency and quality of employees’ work performance. (International Ergonomics Association, 2008) Repetitive Strain Injury – also known as chronic upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders or cumulative trauma disorders are work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) which is often associated with repetitive poor body postures. (Stock, 1991; Ranney, Wells, & Moore, 1995) In gathering concrete evidences with regards to the major causes of work-related stress causing physical