Solutions regarding Google Glass privacy issues Research Paper

Solutions regarding Google Glass privacy issues - Research Paper Example g Privacy Issues in the Context of Google Glass† draws on his over 10-year experience studying privacy and mobile computing to examine the negative sentiments that have afflicted Google Glass. He looks at the issue from the perspective of lessons learned about privacy from the ubiquitous computing project in the 1990s, as well as current expectations of privacy change. Yesenia Duran in â€Å"Google Glass Finds Its Way into Law Enforcement† discusses the use of Google Glass by law enforcement and government agencies to increase situational awareness. Ribeiro Furlan in â€Å"Google Glass† discusses the risks posed to users of Google Glass with regards to hacking, which can make private information available to unauthorized people. Finally, Schreiber discusses the considerable challenges that Google Glass portends on existing privacy laws and paradigms, examining implications and solutions. From these articles, a question arises: What are the solutions to Google Glas s’ privacy issues? This paper will argue that Google Glass should seek to improve security by ensuring recording can only occur with the knowledge of people around the wearer, as well as ensuring that information collected through the device is secure from unauthorized access. â€Å"Google Glass displays information in a smartphone-like hands-free format that can interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands† (Duran 18). However, because of this, Google Glass wearable computers pose pertinent privacy questions that need to be addressed before Google can make them available on the market. To begin with, Google Glass threatens those not using it as they are always under surveillance. Most of these people will react to people wearing Google Glass as if they are recording them, even when they are not. In turn, this will threaten their ability to hold anonymous, candid, or private social interactions, increasing the likelihood of social venues banning its use. In addition, although the Google

How far Has the Modern Conservative Party Departed from the Coursework

How far Has the Modern Conservative Party Departed from the Thatcherite Agenda - Coursework Example The departure of Cameron’s â€Å"Big Society† from Thatcher’s â€Å"New Right† is more on the semantics but many of the principles of its predecessor remain the same. First, Thatcher’s â€Å"there is no such thing as society† did not mean the dissolution of social ties that composed society. She herself clarified that the original intent of the statement was distorted beyond recognition. What she meant by â€Å"there is no such thing as society† is to diminish dependency on welfare and to encourage individual members of society to help themselves. In effect, it lessens the burden on public expenditures which contributed to the inflation that beset UK’s economy. Thatcher may have just put it in the wrong way but the intent and purpose of her statement was to strengthen industry by enabling society’s individual members. In effect, Cameron’s â€Å"Big Society† is just the same with Thatcherism when it intends c ut back public expenditures (though explaining that he is just returning it to 2007 level). It only differs in a way that it encouraged public engagement and volunteerism and by putting up a Big Society fund of ?200M to enhance societal capability (Channel4.com 2011). With regard to the economy, Cameron also adopts the free market system which is precisely what Thatcher asserted despite public criticism during her time. Cameron’s economic policy pronouncements also do not subscribe to Keynesian inflationary measure of pump priming the economy through increased public expenditure. It is only his method that differs from Thatcher because he intends to cut public expenditure which Thatcher was opulent during her term. II. The Conservative party and its ideology The Conservative Party used to be known as Tories that dated back in 1678. It only assumed its present name Conservative Unionist Party in 1912 after it allied with the Liberal Party. Its dominant ideology in the early 20 th century was One Nation Conservatism, which was to unite the varying sectors of society (Heywood 2007). Among the esteemed ideologues of the Party was Edmund Burke. Burke was a follower of Adam Smith and his market economy whom Thatcher herself acknowledged to have influenced her liberal economic policy. During the late 19th century, the Conservative Party agreed for a greater representation of the middle class in the parliament. This was contained in the Tamworth Manifesto which was the fundamental political belief of the new Conservative Party. Business also supported the Conservative Party with its coalition with the Liberal Party which made the Party of industry and commerce (Ingle 2008). III. The Thatcherite Agenda: The New Right (1979-1990) Before Margaret Thatcher assumed as the Prime Minister of UK in 1979, UK had been experiencing high unemployment rate under a series of trade union strikes which the media dubbed the â€Å"Winter of Discontent† because the Labour l ed government implemented a freeze on the pay increase of the workers to control the lingering inflation of 20% (Hall and Jacques 1983). Upon assumption of office, Margaret Thatcher implemented her policy programs which are popularly known as â€Å"The New Right†. The Thatcherite Agenda was characterised by neo-liberal policy of a market oriented economy and neoconservative policy which emphasises the traditional Tory values of One Nation Conser

Chicken Run Essay Example for Free

Chicken Run Essay During 2005, Encik Selamat, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), was transferred from another subsidiary of PCK Holding, which dealt in the business of transportation to poultry and meat business, Excel Poultry and Meat Sdn Bhd (EPM). En Selamat was initially reluctant to accept the position as he lack of expertise in poultry and meat industry. However, later, he accepts and undertakes the position of General Manager in EPM as a new challenge to him. For the first three (3) years, he managed to handle the company smoothly. However, during the closing year end of 2008, the company has faced with tremendous operational crises. Thus, this report will identify and give recommendations on the issues arise in the company. There are two main issues or problems is being identified in this company, which are, increase in price of chicken feed and credit control and managerial problems. For the first issue, regarding the rise of chicken feed price, it is recommended for EPM to plant fast growing trees such as maize tree, trichanthera gigantea tree (fodder tree), or mulberry tree. These three trees have been proved by many researches and farmers all over the Asian countries as the alternative or substitute of commercial chicken feed. By consuming half or thirty percent (30%) of the substitute chicken feeds, this may reduce the existing cost of production. Moreover, it is cheap, fast and easy to plant these trees. In addition, the plant can be used for another purpose of business and may generate income. For example, one maize tree can produce 4 corns in a year and EPM can sell them and make money out of it. Same goes to trichanthera gigantea tree, the leaves and plants not only can be feed to chicken but many other animals such as, cows, goats, ducks, pigs, horses and many more. Thus, EPM can sell their leaves to other farmers and this can help them increase their income. Mulberry tree proves to have more uses. By fully utilize the tree, EPM can generates income in short term as well as in long term. The leaf can be made as tea powder, and can raise silk worm thus they can make silk cloth. The fruit itself can be made as foods or drinks such as wine, pies, tart, jelly jams and juice. Also, the bark or wood can be use to produce paper and furniture. Another way to reduce cost is by placing the breeder chickens in a free range farm. When the chickens are freely place in an open farm and freely eat whatever on the field such as worms, trees, and grass, the commercial chicken feeds will be lessen. Thus, this will give cost reduction for EPM. The commercial chicken feed is necessary for the chicken to consume as it contains all nutrition needed by all chicken. Thus, EPM may still bear the high price of commercial chicken feed. The price of chicken feed is uncontrollable by EPM, but not the sales of EPM. Therefore, there are many ways of increasing the income of the company. EPM can sell chicken eggs, chicken manure, as well as chicken feather to boost their income. Other than that, EPM may collaborate with East Coast Economic Region (ECER) and open branch in Mersing, Johor. The collaboration with ECER program will help to bring the company‘s name throughout nationwide. It is in line with the goal of ECER to increase the poultry output by 35% between years of 2005 to 2010. ECER program may also helps EPM to transform into major international and local tourism destination and exporter of resources and manufactured chicken poultry. The second issue in the company is on the credit control and managerial problem. Based on the case of financial reports of EPM, the costs of sales incur increasing closely and nearly to the revenue earned each year and the trade receivables amount also increase each year. The account receivable turnover ratio for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 are 4. 307, 3. 396 and 2. 88 respectively. It shows the decrease in efficiency of a business in collecting its credit sales. Also, the trade receivable percentage of increase for the year 2007 and 2008 are 27. 56% and 60. 49% respectively. This shows that the account receivable increase drastically during the year. Therefore, this proves that ECM is having a weak credit control. It has being identified that the marketing department continued to supply chicken to Gold Cold Sdn Bhd (GCSB) even though GCSB has exceeded its credit limit. Thus, it is suggested for EPM to offer GCSB for cash discount to encourage early debt payment or cash sales. For example, offer 20% discount if they make payment within 1 week. Other alternative is that EPM should limit the supply to GCSB until they make payment of debts. Besides that, instead of Encik Selamat, the credit collection department staff should directly communicate to GCSB regarding the payment and supply of chicken. Not only that, EPM should send monthly credit sales statement to GCSB and remind GCSB about their debts through phone calls for instance. Instead of highly dependent on the sales from GCSB, the company may approach for more supplying tenders and contracts. For example, they can approach Ayamas Food Corporation Sdn Bhd, Ayam A1 Corporation Sdn Bhd, and all giant superstores. Also, they can carry out open tender instead of close tender to promote broader markets. Other than weak credit control, the company also has weak credit management. In this case, Puan Azura only concerned on sending reminders to debtors when she thought that auditors will be checking on that matters. Also, the records produced by Puan Azura are not similar with the figure from the confirmation letter by Mr. Siva. Therefore, the recommendation for EPM to solve the problem is, Puan Azura should be asked to send the monthly debtor statement regardless whether the auditor will be checking on her works or not. Other than that, the duties of employees should be segregated. For example, person whom collects the cash (Encik Munir) differs with the one whom updates the reports (Puan Azura) and the transaction should be verified by other personnel (Ms Choy). Furthermore, all the different personnel from different department must be communicated to each other to avoid error. Besides, managerial problems also arise in the company. From the case, we noticed that there is no supervision of Encik Kassim works by Encik Selamat. This problem can be solved by having more supervision over their staffs’ works by Encik Selamat as well as by board of directors. This can reduce the opportunity of fraud and misappropriate of company’s assets by their staffs. Other managerial problem is that, Encik Selamat was having personal meeting wih Encik Azman, the executive director of GCSB regarding their business and debt collection. The personal meeting should be avoided as it can lead to personal interest threats. Therefore, EPM must establish proper procedures for debt collection. Furthermore, EPM must as well establish and communicate a code of ethics which includes guidelines to be followed by debtors and employees with regards to debt collection. Even though there are many wrongdoings done by Encik Selamat, directors are reluctant to take any action against Encik Selamat. Therefore, it is highly recommended that PCK holding, the parent company, to change the directors. New directors may give new aspirations and directions for the company to continue to survive and succeed in the poultry industry. By solving all these problems, EPM may boost their performance for the next year onwards.

Noble Prize in Physics Essay Example for Free

Noble Prize in Physics Essay The Nobel Prize was established in the year 1895 following the honor of Alfred Nobel who was among the chemists considered influential and powerful in the scenes of inventions. It is imperative to note that Nobel Prize in Physics is regarded as a precious award in this field of study and thus its reception comes with a lot of dignity and respect. On the third day of May, the year 1902, a year after the Nobel Prize was first awarded, Alfred Kastler was born. This was in Guebwiller in Alsace where he also studied in his earlier life before he continued further at Oberrrealchile of Colmar. He was later to collect the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1966. Kastler taught for close to five years before furthering his career to higher education by joining Faculty of Science at Bordeaux . He later worked as a lecturer at Clermont_Ferrand for two years, then at Bordeaux again, but this time as a professor for two years. In 1941, George Bruhat asked Alfred to abandon his occupation in Germany and join them in Paris where he was to assist in building physics teaching program at Ecole Normale Superieure. Although the post he was offered was provisional, he did accept to take it. He was later confirmed in 1952 at the Paris Faculty of Sciences when he was allocated an official position. Alfred Kastler is reported to have developed an interest in science in his junior level studies particularly because of his mathematics teachers at that time who greatly influenced his choice. He was later to strengthen his foundation in mathematics when he joined a special mathematics class held by some two influential scientists, Brunold and Mahuet. It was these two who made him secure an entry to the Ecole Normale Superieure. This college offered a rather friendly environment where one could comfortably study to great depth his field of specialization. Bohr’s atom and other interesting concepts of quantum physics were introduced to Alfred by one of his teachers Eugene Bloch. Kastler developed a particular interest in the approach used by Sommerfeld in his analysis of atomic structures and the explanations on the observable spectral lines. Sommerfeld’s book explained the famous principles of conservation of momentum as applied in the investigation of energy exchange processes between atoms and even radiation by A. Rubinowicz. Interpretation of various selection rules for example, for azimuthal quantum number and also polarization in the Zeeman effect are traced to this principle. All the research work carried out by Kastler was also stemmed on this principle. Alfred went ahead and even carried out experiments in attempt to elucidate there exist transverse component of the momentum of photons. These experiments failed since he discovered they never existed. This he realized after appreciating the results obtained by R. Frisch who was his predecessor in this field of study. At the time when Alfred Kastler was appointed to assist professor Pierre Daure back at Bordeaux Faculty of Science, most of his free time was devoted to research work since his duties ten were less strenuous. It was at this time that Professor Daure introduced him into the field of experimental spectroscopy. Alfred studied optical spectrometry specifically, atomic fluorescence and also Raman spectroscopy. During his studies, the luminescence of sodium atoms in the upper atmosphere greatly interested him leading to his discovery of the D line of the twilight sky that could actually get absorbed by the sodium vapor. He also carried out intensive research at Abisko exposing his experiments to prolonged twilight and together with his colleague, Jean Bricard, he demonstrated that D line is polarized. This is indeed justified if this emission mechanism produced by solar radiation is of the optical resonance type. Alfred remained focused and persistent in his research thereby developing a systematic approach to the consequences of the principal of conservation of angular momentum as observed in optical (light) scattering and also in fluorescence. During this process, he realized that optical excitation of atoms and especially when done in steps, was a very interesting method in experimental physics since the operator could at will subject different monochromatic sources of radiation to polarization and then observe the atom rise through successive steps depending on the absorbed increased energy amounts. Many other scientists applied various methods to investigate atoms especially at the fundamental state; something was yet to be done about their excited states. The suggestion to extend investigation methods to the excited states of atoms was made by one renowned scientist, Bitter, who also Kastlers’ former student. It was then that Kastler and Brossel resolved to use â€Å"double resonance method†. This method was a little bit complicated and involved a combination of the already existing methods of analysis; optical resonance and magnetic resonance. Experiments involving â€Å"Double resonance† involved the use of an r. f field of a corresponding frequency to the interval observed in Zeeman splitting. This in turn depolarizes polarized ground state resulting into increased or accelerated optical absorption as controlled using a photodiode. Since Brossel had prior knowledge on the study of exited states which he did back at M. I. T and Kastler was an expert in optical pumping, this was a great boost particularly when it came to combining the two methods. Together, they worked to perfect the methods receiving assistance from young energetic intellectuals from Ecole Normale in Paris. Kastler is also reported to have had very stimulating lectures about this particular field. According to his students, he described atoms and photons in the simplest of ways making them much more interesting than they had imagined, posing new possibilities to be explored further in this field. He considered himself a student and was always eager to be taught and explore new things. No wander he sometimes sat amid the learners keenly following lectures on matrix theory! His analysis in the earlier stages involved the use of mercury atom which he excited optically in the presence of a magnetic field. He observed only selected Zeeman sublevels presented in those exited states. Of significant interest was the observable selection that still existed even in the absence of magnetic field (zero magnetic fields). Alfred also realized that Fermi and Rasetti had used alternating magnetic field in their experiments on excited atoms but never studied resonance phenomenon of the same. It is thus indeed the polarized light which permits this detection using light of the magnetic resonance of the excited states. In the process of applying double resonance by Jean, Alfred showed that are optically excitated using circularly polarized light enabled the transfer of angular momentum to the atoms. The French physicist won the respected Nobel Prize for Physics in 1966. This followed his new discovery, development and implementation of methods used in observing Hertzian resonance within atoms. At that time, he was the professor in charge of Laboratory physics at Ecole Normale Superieure. His research work that saw him earn this award initiated the study of atomic structures in greater depths using emitted radiations from the atoms under excitation by light waves or even radio waves. He actually used â€Å"Optical pumping method† to stimulate atoms from their fundamental state other excited states. This technique is currently utilized to produce spin alignment in a selected gas with specific atoms. For instance, application of circularly polarized light at specific frequencies will initiate transitions from ground state to excited states. The light energy used in the process of stimulating the atoms was greatly re-emitted and thus both maser and laser technologies trace their roots to optical pumping. This technique, though comparatively simple, it is significantly applied in measuring hyperfine splitting effect and even nuclear magnetic moments as exhibited by some suitable atoms. This forms the fundamental principles behind the operation of a low-field magnetometer and also that of an atomic clock. It is also imperative to appreciate that as Alfred and his team was progressing with their research, several foreign teams reported to have achieved excellent results using techniques that were developed by him. They could actually measurements on nuclear quadruple electric moments as observed in alkali metals among many other discoveries. Alfred Kastler spent most of his research time studying ground and also excited states of atoms. This brought him a fat harvest of results especially on the quality of the data he obtained together with his team while studying various parameters of an atom. For instance, their data helped them analyze relaxation processes making them determine precise and exact values of nuclear magnetic resonance in the process. Consequently, they made several discoveries involving high-order perturbations where he demonstrated Hertzian resonance shifts in the act of optical irradiation amongst many other phenomenons. His significant contribution to this field of physics was thus worth rewarding. References L. Allen and J. H. Eberly (1987), Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms. Dover Publications, New York Alfred Kastler. (2009). â€Å"Encyclopedia Britannica†. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http://www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/313094/Alfred-Kastler A. Kastler. (1967) , Optical methods for studying Hertzian resonance. Science Harald Klepel and Dieter Suter. ( 1992. ) Transverse Optical pumping with polarization-modulated light. Optics Commun. ,

Anti Federalist Arguments The Needed Balance

Anti Federalist Arguments The Needed Balance The year was 1787; delegates were convening at the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where the Declaration of Independence had been signed eleven years earlier.   There, 55 representatives came together for four months to frame a Constitution for a federal republic.   The reason for their convergence on Philadelphia was to revise the Articles of Confederation.   Since 1781 the Articles hindered the needed progress of the thirteen United States.   Rather than a united confederation, states were autonomous causing compromise and cooperation to be in short supply.   The Articles left most of the power with the state governments as a response to fears of re-creating a centralized power similar to Britain.   The burgeoning responsibilities of states were being impeded by several Articles, one being the lack of a revenue stream.   Under the Articles, Congress lacked authority to levy taxes.   It could request the states to contribute a share to the common treas ury, but the amounts gained through this mode of collection were not sufficient. To remedy this particular defect, Congress proposed an amendment that applied to the states for power to lay duties and secure the public debts. The amendment was agreed to by twelve out of thirteen states, with only Rhode Island refusing its consent, thereby defeating the proposal.   Articles 3 and 13 both required all thirteen states to agree in order to pass any legislation.   To overcome the necessity of thirteen states, early in the deliberations delegates voted that only nine states would be required to ratify the constitution.   This change made a difference to the process of ratification.   No longer could Rhode Island or any other state keep the whole from collective progress by one abstaining vote.   The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proceeded with men from every state but Rhode Island, as they deliberated over the necessary amendments to the Articles of Confederation the y all agreed that unfortunately, the Articles were not worth amending or saving.   Amid great secrecy they begin to write or â€Å"frame† a new constitution. As the delegates analyzed the Articles of Confederation, they noted many points that were to be part of the new document.   One was an executive branch; in affect the Articles disallowed an executive branch to enforce the laws, nor a national court system to interpret them. The question arose in 1689, a hundred years earlier, by social philosophers such as John Locke, who were arguing the need for an executive to have the power to enforce laws that are enacted by the people.   Under the Articles of Confederation in 1787, Congress was the sole organ of the national government without the ability to force the states to do anything against their will. Congress could in theory declare war and call for an army to be raised, but it could not force any state to provide its assigned quota for troops or arms or the equipment needed to support them. Due to their autonomy, the states were impervious to the threat of force or punishment, leaving Congress at a loss for the income needed to fi nance its activities.   Should a state or states not chose to participate Congress could not punish them for not contributing their share of the federal budget.    In relation to finance and monetary controls, the states controlled taxation and tariffs within their state, and each state could issue its own legal tender.   To this point, the states were more likened to European countries with disputes over borders, different currency and differing governments. Such significant differences caused disputes to arise between the states. Undoubtedly there were many unsettled quarrels over state boundaries and currency issues in regard to trade.   In the end, the only role that Congress could play was of mediator and judge without the force needed to require states to accept its decisions.    With so many contradictory Articles governing the country, a secure future seemed lost due to the many factors that would from past experience, never come together.  Ã‚   For the most part , the nations government, under the Articles of Confederation, seemed like a body without arms and legs.   From May to September 1787 a completely new and improved articles of confederation were written and called the Constitution.   The proposed Constitution was the tool that would presumably lay the foundation for future generations in governance of America.   The purpose and job of the Constitution was to correct the faulty Articles of Confederation and ensure greater central government strength and allow states to proceed as before with greater security and ability.   This was the hope but, the message was not received with the same understanding by the people.   Each state sized up its own unique situation and by calling their own ratification conventions, discussed the issues to determine if the proposed constitution would guarantee existing rights and benefit the state as a whole and not just portions of it.   After the work was completed the â€Å"framers came to an agreement on a final draft of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, after which they signed and prepare d to send it to the people for ratification. American people were now faced with a daunting task.   The whole of the nation had arrived at an important moment of their existence as a union.   Each state had matured at its own rate and grown into its geographical area by putting to use the natural resources each had to work with.   In doing so, they created and built an infrastructure and their own economic stability.   The American states were asked to enter into a federal covenant that would guide and by law regulate the countrys population in trade, commerce, security, and foreign relations. This question became Americas first political argument and one of the most important.   When the final draft was ready for public discourse and ratification not all thirteen states agreed with the entire document.   Smaller states found, what they believed were flaws that withdrew power from the individual states and gave it to the central government, which too many was against the American ideology of independence.   As a reaction to the many questions and concerns the American people were expressing a trio of men came together.   They were physically only 30 years old yet; they were indeed older through the acquisition of political experience, knowledge, and power.   For example, Alexander Hamilton served as a captain and as Washingtons aide-de-camp during the Revolution, he distinguished himself at the bar after victory, and by 1787 was already a prominent figure in the creation of the infant nation. The next man James Madison, by contrast, was more the pensive philosopher than the bold statesman. A lifelong student of philosophy, history, and law, particularly the law of nations, Madison would, despite his shyness, be a commanding presence and driving force at the constitutional convention.    However, it was John Jay who was the most experienced of all three by the time the Constitutional Convention was called. Aside from having served the fledgling republic as a masterful negotiator, a diplomat, and even, for a time, as its president, Jay was the only one to have had direct experience in Europe.   And so by 1787, all three gentlemen were indeed old with experience, well prepared to meet the challenges of the task at hand.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Taking the lead in pushing for ratification, in 1787 these three politicos decided that in order for the new Constitution to be ratified there would have to be a saturation of the issues at hand in the newspapers.   They, along with other men, wrote their arguments for the Constitution and came to be known as the Federalists.   In the same spirit as the Federalists emerged their counterparts, the anti-Federalists.   Both sides published statements, essays, and their opinions on why the proposed constitution should or should not be accepted and ratified. Each group of men was driven by their beliefs and together they fought for what they thought was important for their country.   The anti-Federalist later went by the name of Republican and the Democratic Republican, they spoke for many of the smaller states and their constituents, who had fought and sacrificed along with American forces for the victory over Britain.   They had foresight in their convictions which continue to serve the country today.   The Federalists were influential intellectuals who believed in the Constitution, and believed that it was the perfect model of government to achieve a just society.   Under the proposed Constitution, the American people could enjoy their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Generally, Federalists were wealthy citizens, highly educated professionals, who in most cases were lawyers and their supporters followed suit by being Propertied and educated people.   In their arguments for the provisions of the Constitution, Federalists stated that if the Constitution had sections or certain language that did not work, amendments could be made. Their arguments were decidedly their strongest weapon in their pursuit to educate the public.   Alexander Hamilton was first to publish the Federalists first argument for ratification of the Constitution.   His opening words grabbed his audience: AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. Hamilton had offered the perfect statement on the weight of the matter before them as a country, during this most august period of American history.   Of this there was no argument.   Yet, as the essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Madison, and John Jay began filtering throughout the states there came responses from their counterparts, the anti-Federalists.   They were somewhat less organized than the Federalists, not owing to any financial benefice and served to represent the strong opposition to the idea of states loss of power to a federal government.   The response given to the Federalists essays began with an author known as â€Å"A FEDERALIST†: I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. Thus the war of words had commenced, a thought at that moment might have been, shall we as a public agree to the Constitution as written or shall we, for all future generations, dissect and analyze the document before placing our hand in agreement?   The American people read the essays, listened at town hall meetings, and fueled public dialogue to full head by complete dissemination of the issues at hand offered by both groups of authors.   Their writings were strong, psychological, emotional, and called to the heart of the population to come together for the benefit of the whole and not the one.   The anti-Federalists included some very impressive notables such as Patrick Henry, James Winthrop, Robert Yates, George Clinton, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson. Not all contributed to the essays.   Those who did, rather than using their own names, took their cue from the Federalists and used pseudonyms.   The anti-Federalist writers shared a considerably wider range of views. Common concerns were expressed by authors known as Brutus and A Federal Farmer.Robert Yates was known to be â€Å"Brutus† but, the identity of A Federal Farmer was never confirmed. One of the key points these two men made regarded the necessary and proper clause.   The Necessary and Proper Clause, also referred to as the Elastic, Basket, and the Sweeping Clause is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18: The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. This clause gave Congress the power to make laws which were necessary to execute all powers vested in the Constitution. The anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution only had the power to do what it states it can, and that nothing should be presupposed by the government. In other words, the government should never use the necessary and proper clause as a blanket grant of power†.   Anti-Federalist were men who understood from their recent involvement with the Revolution that giving too much power to a national government could foster tyrannical desires for more power.   The aristocratic elite and moneyed men would govern for their own states and personal benefit without any concern for the smaller states needs.   Further, the anti-Federalist felt Americans had been given empty promises and after fighting for independence their own independence and ability to provide for their families would become extinct if the Constitution was ratified as it was written.   The prim ary fear was that while a republican government was desirable in order to defend liberty, it was not possible over a large geographic area, such as the United States, because it had never been accomplished before. The fall of the Roman Empire was an implosion, a reaction to inadequate governing of an area to vast to control. The other major pitfall of republics had been class war, something that the Founding Fathers had seen in the recent Shays Rebellion. From 1781 to 1787 there was much consternation within the borders of the United States.   From an extract of a letter from James Madison to George Washington, Feb. 3, 1788, we can read sentiments received from Boston from a member of the convention there: Never was there an assembly in this state in possession of greater ability and information than the present convention, yet I am in doubt whether they will approve the constitution. There are, unhappily, three parties opposed to it. First: All men who are in favor of paper money and tender laws. Those are more or less in every part of the state. Second: All the late insurgents and their abettors. In the three great western counties they are very numerous. We have in the convention eighteen or twenty who were actually in Shays army. Shays Rebellion was an example of the small farmers and independents who had their land and homes threatened to be taken from them.   An armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts, centering in Springfield from 1786 to 1787, Shays rebellion represented the poor compatriots farmers angered by what they felt to be crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtors prisons or the claiming of property by the County.   The leader of the Rebellion, Daniel Shays, was himself a veteran of the American Revolution who found himself engulfed in the issue and fought for a way out.    The rebellion was still fresh on the minds of many, causing the mood among the last states to ratify to be thick with opposition and strong sentiments against the contents of the constitution.   The last states to accept the proposed constitution were New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and Rhode Island.   New York presented the problem in its simplest form, the entire mass of interior counties, from Ulster to Columbia, were solidly anti-Federal, encompassing the agricultural portion of the state, the last arrived and settled, and the most thinly populated.   Governor George Clinton of New York wrote on one of the important issues among the anti-Federalists.   From the following extract of a letter from New York, July 20, 1788, George Clinton was quoted as saying, if they ratify the constitution, they must by heavy taxes support their government, which is now wholly done by the impost, etc.   This with the Mynheers is a weighty argument.   George Clinton went on to write, In Opposition to Destruction of States Rights, the following: The premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all thirteen parts into one great whole, under the firm of the United States But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United Statesthe dissimilitude of interests, morals, and politics in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posteritythis unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself Clinton continued that from his prospective there were no promises that could be made secure â€Å"on the score of consolidation of the United States into one government.†Ã‚   Impracticability, risk, ambitious, and aggrandizement, oppression, intricate and perplexed became words to describe the proposed constitution.   Clinton ended by saying that the proposed constitution was â€Å"too mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic† Interpretation and understanding by the common man was an important factor for the anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.   Writing on states rights, Federalist No. 6 author stated, â€Å"A great danger exists in the competition between states themselves if they are left entirely to their own sovereignty, with no unifying government. Men are by their nature ambitious, and independent states will naturally compete with one another for love of power, control of commerce and domination of territory.† The response from anti-Federalist explained that a strong state government was better than a strong central government. To them if the central government was too strong then it would threaten the peoples liberties and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   What rights did the people have under the proposed Constitution?   This issue was the next mountain to cross towards ratification. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, who wrote Need for a Bill of Rights felt: this proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature!. You ought to be watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forevera wrong step made now will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise The argument over the Bill of Rights was arguably the most important issue for the ratification of the constitution.   Their necessity appeared to be of greater importance in order to calm the states.   Patrick Henry added these words in his observation of the matter, â€Å"We are told that all powers not given are reserved. I am sorry to bring forth hackneyed observations. But, Sir, important truths lose nothing of their validity or weight, by frequency of repetition.†Ã‚   Rather than infer the rights of the people, â€Å"all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights,† they would be declared.   This argument was one of the turning points for the final states ratification of the Constitution.   Henry continued his essay on the essential need for the bill of rights by explaining: Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw  ­ a government that has abandoned all its powers  ­ the powers of taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights  ­ without check, limitation, or control You have Bill of Rights to defend against a state government, which is bereaved of all its power, and yet you have none against Congress, thought in full and exclusive possession of all power! The Bill of Rights was important to the American people and by promising to make amendments and provide a draft of a Bill of Rights the delegates began to revisit their stance toward acceptance of the proposed constitution.   The â€Å"Bill† was demanded by the anti-Federalists in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island where the battle for ratification was not clear. In these states the voting was a lot closer than in the states that first decided to ratify. The Federalists however had strong opposition to a Bill of Rights. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill argued that a list of rights would not, should not, and could not be interpreted as exhaustive; these rights were examples of important rights people had, along with other rights as well. Many concerned with the final interpretation of the Bill of Rights were confident that the judiciary would construe these rights in a liberal fashion. Fortunately, the Ninth Amendment would clarify the matter by addressing the rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.   The arguments were just getting started, representation was of extreme importance to the smaller states who felt their position and voices would be extinguished if their representation was not equal to the larger states, who by virtue of their size may attempt to dominate on issues against those states with less representation.   The fear was understandable.   The Deep South would go to war over such issues as representation.   Melancton Smith, a New York representative at the Convention, wrote his views on the issue of representation for the anti-Federalists stating: When we speak of representatives they resemble those they represent. They should be a true picture of the people, possess a knowledge of their circumstances and their wants, sympathize in all their distresses, and be disposed to seek their true interests. Smith believed that the â€Å"knowledge necessary† for the true representative of a free people should include a comprehension of: extensive political and commercial information, such as is acquired by men of refined education, who have leisure to attain to high degrees of improvement, but it should also comprehend that kind of acquaintance with the common concerns and occupations of the people, which men of the middling class of life are, in general, more competent to than those of a superior class. In order to represent a state, its inner structure must be understood.   The true commercial interests of a country are not the only requirement for representation but also, and most importantly, â€Å"a knowledge of the productions of your own country, and their value, what your soil is capable of producing, the nature of your manufactures, the capacity of the country to increase both.† In the area of laying taxes, duties, and exercises with discretion requires knowledge of the system of finance.   A representative should also know about the people of his country, their circumstances and a general understanding of their economic commerce and ability.   They should also understand, â€Å"how the burdens imposed will bear upon the different classes.†Ã‚   Representatives should be from all walks and levels, not just elite citizens but, those of the â€Å"middling class of life.†Ã‚   Smith, as well as others, had a real concern that most bodies of the government were composed of the first class in the community and by distinguishing them by class, it would appear that the government would fall into the hands of the â€Å"few and the great.†Ã‚   In order to relieve the delegates of unrelenting concern Smith offered the following insight on representation: This will be a government of oppressionA system of corruption is known to be the system of government in Europe it will be attempted among us. The most effectual as well as natural security against this is a strong democratic branch in the legislature, frequently chosen, including in it a number of the substantial, sensible, yeomanry of the country. Does the House of Representatives answer this description? I confess, to me they hardly wear the complexion of a democratic branch; they appear the mere shadow of representation. The anti-Federalists were important to the final outcome of the ratification process because they poised questions that made the American people stop and think about what they were agreeing to and what they may lose or gain as a consequence of the proposed Constitutions acceptance.   Thomas Jefferson, third president of the U.S., from his own beliefs regarding the ratification of the Constitution, feared it would grant too much power to the U.S. government.   Jefferson thought it should be up to the states to govern themselves with a â€Å"hands-off† approach and strictly limited interference of the national government.   The funny thing about Jefferson, figurehead of the anti-Federalists was for a long time he would not choose sides between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, because of his anti-political party sentiment. He found both sides arguments compelling, he was for a strong central government, which was more of a Federalists view. But, the argument that brought Thomas Jefferson to the anti-Federalist side was Alexander Hamiltons implied powers.   Implied powers were powers which were not stated directly in the Constitution, in other words powers that were assumed by the government. Jefferson was totally against this, he believed that the Constitution could do the things which the Constitution states it can and nothing should be assumed, strict construction. This disagreement would become a great feud between Hamilton and Jefferson, evolving into the first real battle of political parties for election in office. It should be noted that there were conflicting personalities among the â€Å"framers† and their anti-Federalist opposition. When comparing and contrasting anti-Federalist views on the ratification of the United States Constitution with those of the Federalists, one must also consider the inherent relationship that represents their respective views upon principles, problems and solutions, ultimately surmising which side best reflects or departs from the original principles set forth for the Declaration. It can be argued that the two sides are quite contrary in their individual perceptions, with each faction believing its own views are of primary integrity.   One of the major beliefs of the Federalists as pointed out at the Philadelphia convention was that a state should vote according to its population. This later became another big issue with the anti-Federalists and people from the smaller states. By comparison of the elite Federalist camp, the anti-Federalists were made up of anyone who was poor and not a big landowner, anyone tired of being controlled, anyone who wanted the peoples votes to directly count and anyone who wanted to protect their rights. The anti-Federalists were made up of all different types of people, who represented the United States population as a whole, far better than did the Federalists. The anti-Federalists wanted their power in the legislature, mainly the lower house where every state has one vote; and the terms of office to be shorter, with limits on how many terms you could serve. These officials were not to be elected by representatives but directly by the vote of the people of the United States. Finally, the only way the anti-Federalists would ever consider helping to ratify the Constitution was if it contained a Bill of Rights, which was believed essential for preserving the individual liberties of the people. It was the consensus of anti-Feder alist everywhere that without this document the government could control every aspect of a persons life. To them the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was just a weapon of the elite upper class over the poor. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt, and the anti-Federalists were able to play on these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts in 1788. By this stage, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease; the Massachusetts convention however, was hostile and argumentative. In the fight for ratification of the proposed United States Constitution between Federalists and anti-Federalists propaganda played a large role on both sides.   Patrick Henry even saw the constitution as a revolutionary document much like Americas separation from Britain, he said I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.Despite the fact the Federalists and the anti-Federalists had opposing views regarding the constitution; both were headed for a common goal of forming a government that could run the country. Many anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government.   States rights, the Bill of Rights, and represenation were all heated subjects during the ratification phase.   The Bill added a comfort zone for the states; they needed security from the fear that the federal government could control them under a tyranny. States felt they would retain their rights through the freedoms afforded through the Bill of Rights.   These freedoms include freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to deny refuge to soldiers, the right to privacy from search, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to representation and to a speedy trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, the right to always have rights, and the right for states to rule on things not mentioned in the Constitution. None of this was possible under British rule; power was transferred from the center to the people. If the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights, the central government could parlay its strength denying people these basic rights. As states made their decision through their own ratification conventions the nine states needed for ratification began voting.   The first state that ratified the Constitution, although its convention was not the first to assemble, was Delaware, followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut.   Ratification of the Constitution was four states away

Consistency and Epistemic Probability Essay -- Argumentative Persuasiv

Consistency and Epistemic Probability ABSTRACT: Is consistency always epistemically virtuous? In this paper, I examine one threat to the traditional view that consistency is a minimum requirement for rational belief. Central to the argument is the notion of epistemic probability, understood as the degree of support or confirmation provided by the total available evidence. My strategy in examining this argument is to apply analogous reasoning to carefully tailored examples. The conclusions which emerge are substantive, informative and utterly implausible. I conclude, first, that the argument for inconsistency fails and, second, that it fails because epistemic probability does not conform to the axioms of the probability calculus. A plausible alternate model for determining degree of support is briefly considered. Is consistency always epistemically virtuous? Is it possible for a set of rational beliefs to be inconsistent? The traditional view has been that logical consistency is a minimum requirement for rational belief. Recently, this traditional view has been challenged, and is now in some disrepute. The issue is not only of interest in its own right, but also has bearing on several other aspects of our conception of justified belief. In particular, it is a critical issue for the coherence theories of justification which have been so prominent of late, for coherence is normally understood in such a way as to presuppose logical consistency. (1) Three distinct lines of argument against consistency can be discerned in the current discussion (although not always clearly distinguished there): (i) the paradox of the lottery, (ii) the fallibility argument, the core of which is an inference from my fallibility in the past to ... ...e Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 37. (7) Note that throughout this paper, an assumption has been made which is necessary for the epistemic probability argument, as well as the analogous arguments, namely, that there is a degree of confirmation less than 1 which is sufficient for justified belief. If this assumption were not granted, then, of course, no conclusion concerning warranted belief would follow. But the same arguments would show that, in the cases presented, there is strong confirmation that there is a natural therapy which cures AIDS (or that someone has exhibited psychic powers). And this conclusion is itself quite absurd. It can be avoided, however, only by rejecting the fit between degree of confirmation and the calculus. (8) This model for conjunction is endorsed by Pollock, op. cit., 248-49, and Cohen, op. cit., 221.

Franklin Roosevelts New Deal Essays -- American History

It was called "relief." Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal provided relief to millions of Americans who had lost their homes, their jobs, and their hope. Many others felt that the radical new policies of FDR threatened the sanctity of the Constitution and free enterprise. Roosevelt's New Deal policies had many critics but among the most vocal were groups like the American Liberty League and powerful Socialists who argued that the New Deal policies either went too far or not far enough in solving the problems that faced the nation. Roosevelt's critics came from both ends of the political spectrum. The American Liberty League was an opposing group made up of conservative businessmen and corporate leaders. Believing that the free enterprise system was being attacked, they accused Roosevelt of trying to install a dictatorship in place of the federal government. In an excerpt from a 1935 article in Fortune magazine, the Roosevelt Administration is thought to be a government of men and not laws. The author compares Roosevelt to a dictator and calls his theory of federal administration "menacing and dangerous". Another political cartoon printed in the June 1936 issue of Current History, ridicules the Liberty League as being alarmist in accusing Roosevelt of bringing communism into the country. Herbert Hoover, a former president, agreed with the conservative ideas of this group. He disagreed with New Deal Legislation such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) or the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The basic idea of these New Deal programs was to lower the supply of goods to the current, depressed level of consumption. Under the AAA, the government sought to raise farm prices by paying farmers not to grow surplus crops. Other ... ...ved that Roosevelt did not care about ending poverty, but instead was more concerned about the fortunes of his wealthy associates. Known as being the most dramatic and innovative movement in modern history, the New Deal helped Americans find a new sense of hope for the future that was once thought to be forever lost. Although the New Deal didn't necessarily end the Great Depression, it successfully played a major role in relieving the distress of unemployment and poverty for many. However, it was the first time that government had played such an active role in the nation's economy and because of that many worried about the future of the nation. Some of Roosevelt's experimental programs are still in effect today. Programs such as Social Security, the FDIC and the SEC have become an integral part of society and they play as important a role today as they did in 1935.