International Trade and Tariff Essay Example for Free

International Trade and Tariff Essay Tariffs Explain the various impacts of an import tariff in small nations vs. large nations. The impact of an import tariff in a small nation is entirely unlike then an import tariff from a larger nation. When smaller nations imposes a tariff, it does not affect world prices, however the price of the importable commodity will start to rise, usually by the amount of the tariff for manufacturers and trade in the small nation. When large nations impose a tariff, it will reduce the volume of trade. Large nation tariffs also improve terms of the nation’s trade. Since the volume of trade is being reduced, it tends to lesson the nation’s welfare. However it also can improve the nation’s welfare. It depends on the welfare of the nation to if it actually rises or falls depending on the two conflicting forces. What are the three main reasons governments prefer using a tariff to restrict imports versus quotas? A few reasons why tariffs are better option than import quotas is because, tariffs can generate revenue for the Government, import quotas can lead to administrative corruption, and import quotas can cause smuggling. The reason the government can make money off of tariffs is because there can be a percentage put on imported goods that will generate extra money. There are millions of different things that are imported into a country and the small percentage of tariffs generates a lot of revenue that would be lost of the government unless their trade had an authorizing fee on goods being imported. This can lead to administrative corruption, if there are no restrictions on importing goods then the government has the ability to pick and choose who can import and who cannot. This can give the custom officials a lot of power since they would have the ability to favor and only allow certain corporations. Tariff system helps to rid the possibility of corruptions. This not just the price, but also the quantity sold through supply and demand. Smuggling can occur with an import quota when there are large shortages. A tariff cannot provide a set number on the goods or products that are coming into the country so the number of imports will increase when the demand for it goes up. Should our government use a weak dollar exchange rate policy to make imports more expensive in order to help our exporters? The weakening of the U. S. dollar means that the dollar has fallen in value compared other currency. The weak dollar is good for exports, but not good for importers. The value of currency will decrease when the demand for that specific currency is low, which will make importing goods more expensive. A weak dollar can make things difficult for exporters that are selling to the United States. If a foreign company wants to sell goods to the U. S. it either needs to up the price of the product or sell it at a lower price because of the exchange rate. What roles do the IMF and WTO play in trade and the use of tariffs? The IMF or International Monetary Fun is an global business of countries that strives to guarantee the constancy of the worldwide financial and economic system. The IMF tries to make sure that there is balanced growth to international trade, it promotes exchange constancy and helps to give countries a way to balance payment issues. Tariff rate data comes from the IMF database and the country’s authority figures. The WTO or World Trade Organization is a global company that works on the rules of trade between two countries. It helps to ensure that international trade moves smoothly and generously. It also gives countries a helpful and just outlet for dealing with arguments over importing issues. The WTO regulations permit a nation to defend certain businesses if the elimination of tariffs would have detrimental side effects, such as the loss of necessary national trade.

Has Globalisation Made The World More Dangerous?

Has Globalisation Made The World More Dangerous? Currently the world grapples with the worst economic downturn in decades, a growing body of research suggests the complexity of the modern global economy may make us more vulnerable than ever to catastrophe. Globalisation has impacted societies around the world in both positive and negative ways. Despite positive changes in certain areas though, there are two significant factors that make the globalised (and globalising) world a more dangerous place with respect to the rise of non-State threats. The spread of information and technology greatly increases the risks associated with any given terrorist attack; and economic transformations related to globalisation have left large portions of society disenfranchised while increasing the polarisation of wealth. Furthermore, the globalisation of culture, economics and religion has been a main reason for the increase in non-state threats and violence carried out by insurgents. Since the emergence and expansion of globalisation in the 1990s, t he world has experienced increased problems. The proposed problems are; increased terrorist activity, gaps between religion and cultural ideologies widening, global financial systems being less stable, dangers of pandemic diseases increasing, and global climate change becoming a major danger. One has to explore the extent to which globalisation has created a situation in which non-State threats can thrive and affect a wider number of people, thus making the world a more dangerous place. Globalisation can be defined as the integration of economic, social and cultural relations across borders (CLARK, 1997), and Globalization is best understood as the creation of a variety of transboundary mechanisms for interaction that affect and reflect the acceleration of economic, political and security interdependence. (KAY, 2004: 10) The term non-State threats refers to groups and individuals such as ethnic militias, cults, organised crime and terrorism. (CHA, 2000) Although terrorism has no wid ely accepted definition it has come to mean the use of violence by small groups to achieve political change. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008: 372) The relationship between non-State threats and globalisation is difficult to describe accurately, but it is inaccurate to suggest that globalisation is responsible for their rise, but technologies associated with globalisation have been exploited. Furthermore the economic transformations that have occurred due to globalisation have made it easier for terrorists to operate globally, communicate between one another and manoeuvre arms, and the breaking down of national territorial and trading boundaries also means that threat can travel further distances. The question asserts that there has been a rise in non-state threats. Indeed, the post cold war era has seen a rise of non-State forms of insurgency and violence, most notably in Mexico, Palestine, Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda. Global Conflicts seem to be changing from wars between states to wars within them. Of the 89 conflicts between 1989 and 1992 only 3 were between states. These conflicts were seen to be non-State, post-ideological, and more devastating in terms of their human effects. Indeed the world has become a more dangerous place in the last twenty years. However, in order to make a judgement on whether globalisation has been the main cause, one has to assess the extent to which globalisation has helped increase the level of threat posed by non-state insurgency and the potential harm this can cause to the global population. Firstly, globalisation has made the world a more dangerous place as the technological advances associated with globalization have improved the capabilities of terrorist groups to plan and conduct operations with far more devastation and coordination. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008: 378) The spread of technology, due to globalisation, has huge implications when considering the risk of any given terrorist attack. Globalisation has resulted in more trade, more connectivity, more markets, and more openness, and has therefore greatly enhanced the likelihood of any of a number of weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical or nuclear, becoming accessible to terrorist groups. Today the potential harm that one terrorist attack can cause is staggering. Weaponry is more widely available in the modern day because they are far more easily bought, sold and transported. Advances in technology have contributed to The mobility of ideas, capital, technology, and people (WEBBER, BARMA, KROENIG, RAT NER, 2007: 50). Therefore non-Sate threats of the present day have a far greater capacity to cause harm globally due the advancement of world communications, transport and other technology. Todays international terrorism owes much to globalisation. Al Qaeda uses the internet to transmit messages, it uses credit cards and modern banking to move money and it uses cell phones and laptops to plot attacks. Globalisation has also empowered terrorist groups as it has allowed an un-censored increase in the volume, range and sophistication of propaganda materials. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008) An example of this can be seen from 1997 when a website posted the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movements communiquà ©s and videos during the seizure of the Japanese embassy in Lima. Furthermore, the terrorist organisation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, has a website that promotes the group as internationally accepted and that they are committed to conflict resolution. Any computer can be used for propaganda purposes, such as with the printing of leaflets, and globalisation has allowed its influence to reach the furthest corners of the Earth. This has made the world more dangerous as the harmful ideals and objectives of terrorists can be spread with ease, and are more accessible to the general public, through the internet, video and various other methods. The technological advancement brought on by globalisation has also meant non-state threats like terrorists can mount co-ordinated attacks, from various areas, in different countries. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008) The London Underground bombings in July 2005, the Madrid bombings in March 2004 are but two examples. Extremist, fundamentalist groups, terrorists, criminals, and drug smugglers have been enhanced by the globalisation of technology and information. (CHA, 2000) Technologies including hand held phones and radios have allowed insurgents to operate independently and at substantial distances from one another. For example the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standard ensures that any compliant phone will work anywhere in the world where a GSM network has been established. Therefore insurgents can conduct attacks in locations that are geographically separated by large distances. The improvement in global communications brought on by globalisation has certainly aided mil itant Islamic non-State threats as they appear presently to have global depth, power, and reach. For example, the 9/11 hijackers utilized cheap and readily available pre-paid phone cards to communicate between cell leaders and senior leadership and, according to at least one press account, coordinated final attack authorization prior to the jets taking off from different locations. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008: 380) Moreover, to a certain extent, terrorism has become much harder to counter due to globalisation because groups such as the Islamic fundamentalists have developed into a virtual global community rather than a hierarchical organisation with fixed training camps and headquarters. Various measures have been put in place for privacy on the internet such as passwords and the development of 64 and 128 bit encryption software which is tough to crack. Threatening Non-State groups are fairly well protected in their virtual community. Therefore, not only have technological advanceme nts, spread throughout the world by the process of globalisation, allowed terrorists to co-ordinate with more efficiency, but they have provided more security for non-State threatening actors as well. Terrorist groups have been able to leverage technological developments designed to shield a users identity from unauthorized commercial or private exploitation (GUNARATNA, 2002: 35). Globalisation has also helped Non-State threats of the present day have incredible mobility and what is more frightening is their potential lethality as well. Globalisation has made the crossing of international boundaries far easier. In recent years terrorists have been able to move rapidly between borders, making efforts to track them very complicated. Global commerce has been expanded hugely and this has helped increase the mobility of non-State threats. The volume of air travel and goods that pass through ports has increased exponentially through globalization (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008). The expanding global system of markets has meant border security measures have been relaxed in many areas. Moreover, demands for the efficient supply, manufacture and delivery of goods has made life more difficult for Sates to prevent terrorists exploiting gaps in security measures, which were originally created to deter illegal activity. An increase in mobility has also made it easier for thre atening non-State groups to transfer expertise between one another, and it has become easier for terrorist groups to establish operational bonds with their counterparts and sponsors across the world. Such collaboration flourished in the 1990s, and members of the international terrorism community are believed to have trained in many countries such as Afghanistan; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Chile; Colombia; Iran; Iraq; Libya; Mexico; North Korea; Pakistan; Sudan; Syria; and Turkey. Moreover globalisation has increased the potential lethality of non-State threats. Globalization may allow some terrorist groups to acquire, manufacture, and use weapons of mass destruction in order to conduct catastrophic attacks. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008: 382) Since the end of the cold war we have been given reason believe that attacks in the future by threatening non-State groups may involve weapons of mass destruction. For example, evidence recovered in Afghanistan in 2001 outlined plans by Al Qaeda to prod uce and test biological and chemical weapons. Globalisation has facilitated access to weapons as opportunities to transport weaponry internationally have grown substantially with the opening of markets and increased trade associated with a globalising world. It has greatly enhanced the likelihood of threatening non-State actors gaining possession of weapons of mass destruction, and therefore there has been a substantial increase in the harmful potential that modern day terrorist attack entails. The breaking down of national trade barriers and the move towards a global free market by globalisation has certainly aided non-State threats. Globalisation is coupled with an ideology of free markets and free trade and a decline in state intervention. (SHELLEY, 2006) The opening of markets has its global benefits but it can also aid terrorists as it has increased their capability to organise and strike globally. The 9/11 attacks are the best example as it was the heart of the US that got struck, which is a fair distance from the Al Qaeda heartland in the Middle East. Globalisation has made the transfer of money across borders literally instantaneous, and opportunities to transport weapons internationally have grown substantially with the opening of markets and increased trade associated with a globalising world. (LI, QUAN, SCHAUB, 2006) The acceleration of trade between states, has resulted in the establishment of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs), and has thus instituted transnati onal organisations that operate by their own rules and regulations rather than that of the governments. The creation of transnational organisations has facilitated trade with less government intervention and this has supported the boom of illicit trade as there are fewer regulations from the government to check the system. Furthermore, the rise in illegal trade of drugs and arms has made it easier for terrorists to fund their organisations and broaden it. As a result of this illicit trade, today terrorism has, in a sense, become a transnational organisation that cannot be easily checked and corrected by the government. Thus terrorists pose more threat to a greater number of people due to globalisation. The current wave of international terrorism, characterised by unpredictable and unprecedented threats from non-state actors, not only is a reaction to globalisation but is facilitated by it. (CRONIN, 2002) A relevant example for this would be resurgence of Al Qaeda and regrouping of T aliban, both labelled as terrorist organizations, funded with cash from heroin trade. (SHANTY, 2008) Globalisation has also made the world more dangerous by creating a system in which international crime, a form of non-State threat, can prosper. Transnational criminals are major beneficiaries of globalisation. Terrorists and criminals move people, money, and commodities through a world where the increasing flows of people, money, and commodities provide excellent cover for their activities. Both terrorists and transnational crime groups have globalised to reach their markets, to perpetuate their acts, and to evade detection (SHELLEY, 2006), thus making the world essentially more dangerous. Globalisation advocates the reduction of international regulations and barriers to trade and investment in order to increase trade and development. However, it is these conditions of a globalised environment that are crucial to the expansion of crime, as the decline in regulations have been exploited and has provided criminals with greater freedom. Transnational crime groups have been able to exte nd their reach by exploiting loopholes of state based legal systems. They travel to regions where they cannot be extradited, base their operations in countries with ineffective or corrupt law enforcement, and launder their money in countries with bank secrecy or few effective controls. By segmenting their operations, both criminals and terrorists reap the benefits of globalization, while simultaneously reducing their operational risks. (SHELLEY, 2006: WEB) Furthermore, globalisation has resulted in global trade increasing enormously, meaning there has been a larger flow of legitimate commodities but also an increase in illicit merchandise. Essentially the world has become more dangerous as globalisation has facilitated the movement of drugs, arms and contraband; which can in turn be used to generate profit for illegal non-State organisations. The drug trade was the first illicit sector to maximise profits in a globalised world. However, as the market for drugs became more competitiv e and law enforcement responses increased, the risk became greater meaning criminals have subsequently sought to benefit financially from other operations like arms trafficking and trade in people. A major service industry has also developed to serve all forms of transnational criminals (SHELLEY, 2006: WEB). For example, providers of false documentation and money launderers such as Riggs Bank in Washington D.C which was prosecuted for laundering money for the dictator of Equatorial Guinea. Overall globalisation has had quite a profound effect on the international criminal community. It has created a situation in which it is easier to prosper from illicit activities, and thus the world is worse off for it. Globalisation is seen by many in todays world as an invasion of different cultures by western (predominantly American) products and materialism. Therefore violence has been sighted by many non-State actors as the only method to preserve certain traditions and values from Americanisation. Western secular, materialist values are increasingly rejected by those seeking to regain or preserve their own unique cultural identity. (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008) Therefore the world may have become a more dangerous place as the process of globalisation, which is viewed by many as a silent American invasion of western ideals and goods, has and will continue to provoke violent reactions throughout the globe. Since the 1990s there have been many social changes due to globalisation, and the spread of free market capitalism appears to overwhelm the identity or values of certain groups. As the new globally connected system is not to the liking of many people, cultural friction may translate into confli cts divided along religious or ethnic lines to preserve cultural identity. Furthermore, economic transformations related to globalisation have left large portions of society disenfranchised while increasing the polarisation of wealth. As Sandbrook and Romano point out, in the era of globalisation, [Economic] inequality has risen in most countries, and in many cases sharply. (SANDBROOK, ROMANO, 2006: 107) Certain fringe groups have suffered terribly from the economic impact of globalisation. Other classes amongst society may have much to gain but the sense of deprivation of those who dont may become a powerful motivator for violence, and globalisation has left out those who pose the greatest threat. The western post-industrial states of the global North dominate international economic institutions such as the World Bank, set exchange rates, and determine global fiscal policies (BAYLIS, SMITH, OWENS, 2008). These actions can often be unfavourable to underdeveloped countries, and provide motivation for many in the global South to shift loyalties to illegal act ivities such as terrorism. Globalisation has provided access to a world market for goods and services, but this has often been perceived as a form of western economic imperialism, and thus can also motivate violence. Globalisation is widely believed to have had a generally positive impact on global economic growth, but the effect of globalisation on employment and the distribution of incomes have been intensely debated in recent years. It does create pressures leading to increased inequality in some countries and the need for structural adjustment in all. Therefore, many in the under-developed world have little opportunity to obtain wealth locally, and this has in turn caused mass emigration to urban centres. However movement is no guarantee of success, and in this case individuals may turn to violence for political or criminal reasons. In conclusion, globalisation has provided threatening non-State actors with a number of benefits. It has improved the technical capabilities of terrorists and given them global reach, and has created a system in which crime has become far more international. Moreover, globalisation has been seen by many as a western intrusion of other cultures and religions which has motivated violence. Essentially all these factors have certainly made the world a more dangerous place. However, in the era of the Cold War before globalisation took its largest strides, a war between the USA and the USSR had the potential to harm nearly everyone on the planet. This is something terrorists, ethnic militias, and global criminals can never achieve despite now having global reach. The potential threat posed pre-globalisation was greater than that of non-State threats of the present day. On the other hand the Cold War did not harm many at all whereas international terrorism now is causing problems all over t he globe. The world may indeed be more dangerous due to the increased powers of non-State threats thanks to globalisation, but the actual danger of new international terrorist networks to the regimes of stable states in the developed world, but also in Asia, remains negligible. Horrifying though the carnage of 9/11 was in New York, it left the international power of the US and its internal structures completely unaffected. (HOBSBAWN, 2008) Terrorism has advanced due to globalisation and has the potential to cause global harm but it can never challenge the existing world order. Globalisation has resulted in both criminals and terrorists developing transnational networks, dispersing their activities, their planning, and their logistics across several continents, and thereby confounding the state-based legal systems that are used to combat non-State transnational aggressors in all their permutations. Threatening non-State groups are major beneficiaries of globalisation. Terrorists and criminals move people, money, and commodities through a world where the increasing flows of people, money, and commodities provide excellent cover for their activities. Both terrorists and transnational crime groups have globalised to reach their markets, to perpetuate their acts, and to evade detection. Therefore, the world has indeed become more dangerous, to a certain extent, as globalisation has created a system in which threatening non-State actors can operate with more organisation and ease; and the consequences are that damage can be caused all over the modern day world.

Childs Safety versus Benefits of Risky Play

Childs Safety versus Benefits of Risky Play There is an ongoing debate whether to prioritise the safety of children or the benefits of risky play in early years setting. More particularly, the contention is on the issue of making certain children are safe against allowing them to play in emotionally and physically motivating and challenging contexts. The emphasis is currently on the right of children to participate in risky play. Thus far, there are no investigations classifying risky play. This study will attempt to accomplish this. In the present study, risky play is defined as stimulating or thrilling varieties of play that involve a possibility of physical harm. Children usually want to and participate in risky or challenging varieties of play although, and to a certain extent, it involves the risk of getting injured or hurt. Because of the safety concerns of the Western culture, the issue of risky play in early years and the degree such play should be monitored and regulated are crucial and continuous debates (Greenfield 2003). These debates on play safety have generated safety proceedings and legislation from concerned child care workers and parents. This has invoked further disputes on the balance between the benefits of risky play for child development on one hand, and safety proceedings and litigations on the other hand (New, Mardell Robinson 2005). Normally, play occurs under the supervision of adults, hence controlling what children are permitted to do and where they are permitted to go (Gill 2007). For this reason, adults are influencing the safety of children when playing, and, simultaneously, they embody the greatest limitation on the childs capability of experiencing challenges and risks that are eventually favourable for development (Gill 2007). A persistent argument in the literature is the children gain developmentally from taking risk, and that too much protection from risk can hamper development. Historical and Current Context of the Debate In a continuously evolving world, environmental and social aspects have significantly affected childrens opportunities for emotionally and physically challenging play. Where previously youngsters may have played in the street, playing ball games, riding bicycles or playing other outdoor activities, increased road hazards has made the streets and play opportunities restricted to children as the risk or perils are extremely high. Children nowadays are confined to their houses or designated areas for relatively secured places to play. Still even these are transforming (Ball 2002). With increasing populations, the enlarged need for housing in several areas, specifically urban areas, is weakening the play spaces of children. High-density housing is increasingly becoming widespread and housing units are becoming smaller (Rivkin 1995). Coupled with diminished opportunities for parents to allocate time for the supervision and participation in their childrens play due to expanded work obligat ions, this condition has led to greatly decreased opportunities for childrens participation in risky play (Rivkin 1995). In addition to this, diminished risky play experiences have been ascribed to the fears of parents for the safety of their children. A UK survey discovered that, although 91 percent of the grown-ups asked understood the benefit of risky play, 60 percent said they were worried about their childrens safety when playing in unsafe places (Valentine McKendrick 1997). Consequently, parents place higher constraints on their childrens independent plays. Their worries have aided the development of overprotective or domineering parenting, by which the world is viewed as a naturally unsafe place from which children have to be protected (New et al. 2005). This concern for safety is present on several levels, involving concerns linked to safety stemming from stranger danger (p. 49) and increased street hazards, as well as those linked to harm inflicted by the use of play equipment, such as skateboards, roller blades, etc., and playground. In contrast, Ball (2002) emphasises that, because the advantages of risky play are not simply determined using recognised western scientific processes, they have a tendency not to be properly regarded in discussions about risk and play. He argues: If the purpose of an activity is not directly considered, then a balance between risk and benefit cannot be struck and one is in danger of considering only one side of the equation (p. 51). It is claimed risk taking can have favourable effects in terms of childrens emotional, social and developmental needs, as well as their general well-being (Ball 2002). Advocates of risky play tend to argue that removing risks deny children the opportunity to evaluate them competently, and hence they are unprepared to cope with any circumstances they may experience in later life (Childrens Play Council 2004). It is argued that, by giving chances to children to deal with their own risks in a regulated environment, they will become skilled at important life capabilities required for adulthood, and acquire the experience required to confront the changeable nature of the world (Childrens Play Council 2004). Gill (2007) claims that depriving children this opportunity may generate a society of risk-disinclined population, or citizens incapable of dealing with daily situations, or in children easily locating more hazardous areas to perform their risk-taking behaviour; risk-taking is regarded to have additional advantages, which contribute to the cultivation of favourable personality attributes, such as creativity (Ball 2002). Through exposure to cautiously supervised risks children become skilled at sound judgment in evaluating risks themselves, thus developing self-esteem, resilience, and confidence, attributes that are crucial for their later independence (Ball 2002). Moreover, a developing culture of litigation has led to the elimination of playground paraphernalia from numerous public places and a growing anxiety amongst educators and child care workers that they will be held responsible for any harm sustained by a child while in their supervision (Childrens Play Council 2004). Moreover, children who adopt and use more minor techniques to play may be open to the more threatening possibilities of chronic illness linked to diminished levels of activity. Experimental data with children in preschools (Smith Hagan 1980) and early school years (Pellegrini Davis 1993) shows that participants who have been denied of physical play for a given period of time will, when provided with the opportunity, participate in physical activities that are much more challenging and persistent. This effect of deprivation was discovered to be more intense for boys than for girls and indicates that risk reduction techniques that limit physical activities are prone to have a direct effect on the plays quality (Mitchell et al. 2006). Hence, the benefit of risk-taking in facilitating childrens development and learning in the context of risky play will be explored in the present study. Current Debate Providing opportunities of risk-taking for children in physical play does not imply that safety is taken for granted. Instead it implies that parents and educators have to be highly aware of the dangers and carry out all the essential steps to make sure that the environment is safe, and to have sufficient number of staffs to supervise risky play (Mitchell et al. 2006). Even within the field of playground safety and harm prevention there is recognition of the benefit of risk-taking during play. As argued by Mitchell and colleagues (2006), children should have opportunities to explore and experiment in an environment that provides a degree of managed risk (p. 122), because eventually, regardless how secure the play environment is, it will fall short in meeting its goal if it is not thrilling and appealing for children. Inopportunely, the concept risk-taking is generally understood with negative implications, with danger and risk usually viewed as synonymous (New et al. 2005). However, Greenfield (2003) thinks a differentiation should be made between these two concepts; risk links to the childs doubt about being capable of attaining the desired result, involving a decision whether to take risk or not, whilst danger is something the child does not perceive. Grown-ups can mostly perceive the dangers and try to get rid of them. The way is in that case certain for children to confront the challenge and take the risk should they decide to do so (Greenfield 2003). This also requires giving sufficient assistance and supervision and being conscious of those features of the childs activities that may contribute to severe injury, particularly as an outcome of improper use of playground tools (Ball 2002). The concept of finding the symmetry is integral if children are to have the chance to encounter some risk in their lives. This symmetry can be realised when adults respond perceptively to individual behaviour patterns (Gill 2007); to recognise and develop childrens capability of evaluating and managing risk, as well as their need for stimulation and challenge in their play. Conclusions Risk is a crucial deliberation within the play field, but it remains a comparatively under-studied field. The studies that have been conducted appears to assume that play is both pleasurable and favourable to children, and there is a number of substantiation that children have a higher understanding of and capability of handling risk than they are credited for. It also proposes that chances for children to evaluate and encounter risk in play are constrained because of several attitudes and structural limitations. Several authors call this a risk-averse society due to the carefulness of risk evaluation in childrens play opportunity, and the prevailing judgment adults adopt towards risky play. There is substantiation to indicate that several of the measures that have been adopted to build safer play for children are not needed or efficient. Scholars appeal for acknowledgement of the potential impacts that thorough safety norms have for children, and propose using a new strategy of risk evaluation.

Geography :: Free Essay Writer

Geography Geography in History: a Necessary Connection in teaching Social Studies Geography and history are complementary subjects best taught together within the social studies curriculum. It is part of the collected wisdom of teachers that one cannot teach history without geography or geography without history. Both subjects have been emphasized in high-profile curriculum reform reports produced by various organizations, such as the Bradley Commission on History in Schools, the Education for Democracy Project of the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. But most social studies teachers are primary teachers of history. They are ignoring an important part of history because they do not include geography as part of the teaching repertoire. The geographic perspective can enrich the study of history by helping students grasp the significance of location, the inevitability of change, and the importance of human perceptions at given times in the past. Helping students to become more informed geographically means teaching better history. Hypothesis How should classroom instructors proceed to connect geography with history in the curriculum. I believe that answering this question will involve three assumptions: It is impossible to understand the present without understanding geography. It is impossible to understand the present without understanding the past. It is impossible to understand the past without understanding geography. In other words, the rationale for history (studying the past to understand the present) requires knowing geography: today’s geography and the geography of different places at different times in the past. Synopsis of Research Bradley Commission-recognizes â€Å"the relationship between geography and history as a matrix of time and place, and as context for events†. Florida Commission on Social Studies Education published Connections, Challenges, Choices which presents the objectives, subjects, topics, and rationale for the state of Florida’s new social studies curriculum for grades K-12.Geography and history are hightlighted as core subjects of the school curriculum in Goal Three of a set of six National Education Goals proclaimed by the President and the state governors in February 1990. The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 years of American History stresses that â€Å"geography is not just a physical stage for the historical drama, not just a set of facts about areas of the earth. It is a special way of looking at the world. Geography, like history, is an age-old and essential strategy for thinking about large and complex matters†.

A True Code Hero :: essays research papers

Hemingway a bright and simple man. A man who writes stories with characters who control their emotions or don’t complain about what’s going on in their life, other wise know as being stoic. People who seem to come to life when they show grace under preasure, have dignity for themselves and are committed to play by the rules. Four characters of Hemingway who show and have all these traits other wise know as the code of honor are Manuel Garcia, Francis Macomber, Ole Anderson, and an Old Waiter who is unnamed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Manuel Garcia is a man who enjoys bullfighting. He tries to convince others as well as himself that he’s still an incredible bullfighter. He’s given a chance to prove himself worthy by a little man named Retana. When Garcia is given this chance he takes advantage of it and asks Zurito, an old friend and skillful bullfighter if he will â€Å"[pick] two bulls for [him] tomorrow night,† (The Undefeated). Zurito is persuaded to pick two bulls for Garcia, but Zurito explains that â€Å"if [he] [doesn’t] go big tomorrow night [he’ll] quit,† (The Undefeated). Garcia has shown that he has the courage to bullfight once more despite his age. The day Garcia has been waiting for came; the bullfight that will determine whether or not he’s as good as he says. He enters the arena confident, but not all goes as he had planned. As the bull fight begins Garcia’s sword flies from his hand and is thrown into the audience. Garcia looks around for his sword, only to have it thrown at him. Despite another misfortune, this code hero keeps his grace under pressure when cushions and the sword are thrown at him by thanking them and bowing. This also shows that he is stoic by not showing others what he truly feels in his heart, sadness of being beat. Towards the end of the story, when the doctor is tying to rehabilitate Garcia, he keeps his dignity by saying he was good out there â€Å"[he] [just] didn’t have any luck was all,† (The Undefeated).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Francis Macomber is another man who held the code of honor, though it might seem so at first. Macomber and a hunter by the name of Robert Wilson are out hunting, when they encounter a furious lion. A lion that frightens Macomber, which makes him unable to react to shoot the lion.

oldman and the sea :: essays research papers

The Old Man and The Sea Old Man and The Sea, a great book by Ernest Hemingway, is about a fisherman’s struggle to save his career. This book is very different than any other book that I have read. It is different because this book doesn’t have multiple events that happen in the story. Santiago, an old fisherman, goes out fishing and hooks a giant marlin. The book explains his struggle to kill the fish and bring it back home. The book symbolizes the struggle of the author to write a great book. Santiago is an old man that wasn’t having much luck fishing. One day he decides to go fishing and hooks a marlin. The man struggles to kill the marlin and in the process he is pulled very far out into the ocean. Santiago becomes attached to the marlin and calls it his "brother". Santiago gains strength by thinking about the things he loves and has interests in such as Manolin, a young fisherman, and the New York Yankees(baseball team). Santiago fights the marlin for three days and finally kills the fish. Santiago goes through many of obstacles to achieve his goal of catching a big fish but when he finally gets it, it’s taken away from him by sharks that eat the marlin. The young man, Manolin is the old man’s best friend. Santiago, taught him how to fish. Manolin use to fish with Santiago but then Santiago ran into a streak of bad luck. Manolin started fishing on another boat. Manolin is very attached to Santiago. They get along very well. Manolin understands why Santiago had to go on the 3-day trial fishing to test his luck and admires him for it. Manolin is the person that takes care of Santiago. The marlin is a very noble, big and beautiful fish. Whatever it symbolizes, to the reader it's something worth fighting for since Santiago risks his life battling sharks in his attempt to save the marlin. The marlin is Santiago’s last shot at luck. Santiago knew that this fishing trip would be the last spark of luck he would have for the rest of his life. Although he doesn’t get the whole marlin to shore, he did bring luck with him because he survived. The marlin is also a sign of the author’s quest to write one good book. Like the fisherman wants to catch a great fish before he dies, Hemingway wants to write a good story.

Desegregation Debate

The challenge of desegregating schools was brought upon in 1954 by five separate court cases, ultimately joined together and called Brown v. The Board of Education. Though each case was different, they all revolved around the main argument that segregation itself violated the â€Å"equal protection under the laws† guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and had detrimental psychological effects on Negroes. Segregation was almost always initiated by whites, and initiated on the basis that blacks were inferior and undesirable. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. When blacks allowed themselves to accept their status at the separate school, the effect on their personalities was perpetually worse than any problem they might encounter in an integrated school. This element became a prominent part of the legal case against segregation (Stephan 9). The biggest argument against desegregation was the perception that blacks were not as intelligent as whites. Since the Fourteenth Amendment did not guarantee the right to a quality education, if a school chose not to accept them, there was nothing that could be done legally. Long after the â€Å"separate but equal† doctrine became law, it was clear that blacks were indeed separate, but they were not equal. Segregation still had a firm hold in the areas of public education, public transportation, hotels and restaurants, hospitals, housing and departments of the United States Government (Stephan 7). An example was the case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education in 1950. George McLaurin was admitted on a segregated basis to the graduate school of the University of Oklahoma as a result of a federal district court order. He was required to sit in an anteroom outside of his classes and was given separate tables at the library and cafeteria (Stephan 11). The expenditure disparity between white and black children was enormous in some areas of the country. In the South, the average expenditure for white children was $44. 00, but was only $13. 00 for black children. In Georgia, the figures were $35. 00 versus $6. 00 and in Mississippi, $45. 00 versus $5. 00. Considering the national average per pupil expenditure was $99. 0, it was clear that the school system was separate and unequal and blacks were not receiving their fair share (Stephan 8). There was also the cost of integrating schools to legal specifications. To minimize transportation costs and to accommodate distinctions between the suburbs and the inner city, the people who were supposed to pay those costs were those who lived near the ghetto inside the inner city limits. Even though the cost was no more than segregation had imposed on middle-class black people, the whites argued that they now had to pay more money in taxes to solve a problem that wasn't their fault. Black children were more likely to attend an inner city school and they felt that in return for their taxes they would receive an increase in crime and a lower standard of education (Stephan 175). Another major argument regarding desegregation was the fact that there was de jure (by law) segregation in the south and de facto (by geography) segregation in the north, with the differentiating factor being â€Å"purpose or intent to segregate. † (Stephan 91) Every standing court order related to school desegregation was based on the discoveries of de jure segregation, either in the north or south. In each case, the courts found that local school districts and occasionally state educational agencies as well, had systematically carried out policies leading to or reinforcing segregation (Stephan 122). One of the disadvantages of desegregation, however, was the way it destroyed the ethnicity of blacks. While they were segregated, it was easy for them to maintain their African-American background. Once they became part of an integrated school system, they were forced to conform to white society's views on dress code, religion and behavior. The busing issue was considered to be â€Å"an educational disaster. † Whereas previously, black children had been bused long distances to segregated schools, now they were busing white children to integrated schools. It didn't help the minority children and it hurt the middle-class children, creating conflicts where they weren't any before. The white middle-class families who felt violated by having blacks being bused into their schools and neighborhoods fostered hostilities. When rioting broke out, it became so serious that the police and National Guard were called in to protect the black students. In addition, it increased educational costs with the addition of new buses and the salaries of the drivers, and jeopardized the health and safety of children (Stephan 123). According to the government, the purpose of desegregation was to integrate the population with the expectation that racially, economically and socially disadvantaged children would benefit and therefore enhance their abilities of obtaining the knowledge needed to acquire higher status and better jobs. With all of the factors contributing to the problems of desegregation, it is obvious that the blacks were caught in a no-win situation. They were already considered to be mentally inferior to whites due to the white perception of them during the times of slavery. Now they were attempting to increase their intelligence level, but their inferiority was causing them to be excluded from the same education that whites were receiving. Once they were finally granted rights into the schools, the stress they were experiencing caused even more psychological problems and learning disabilities. During this time, it was forgotten that the major function of schools was and always will be to educate, and that should never be based on race, religion or color.