Jarroc: The Admiral and Father :: Star Trek Defector Essays Papers

Jarroc: The Admiral and Father During the episode of Star Trek, "The Defector", Jarroc clearly shows that he is not a traitor. He does not properly fit the definition of a traitor and while it can be argued that he was one, his inner motives must be taken into account. It is these motives which make all the difference. The Webster's dictionary from the On-line Library defines a traitor as, "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty: one who commits treason."(gop). As an admiral, Jarroc was privileged to see many top secret documents. Some of these were accounts of the space station on Nelvana 3. The supposed betrayal of trust occurred when he took this information and gave it to the Federation. We were told that since the birth of his daughter Jarroc had become less inclined to the idea of a war with the Federation. He began to question the decisions of his superiors. He didn't do this out of anger but out of a concern for the future of his world and of his family. Even though he was an admiral and a past war hero, he disobeyed his orders and went over to the Federation space and gave them his secrets. Without looking at his reasons, it would be easy to call him a traitor. But there are always two sides to every story, and the question must be raised of to whom was Jarroc being loyal when he decided to leave the Romulan sector. He could have been responding to his own feelings, possibly to his own government as a spy, or he could have been acting for the future of his worlds. After doing a little research on the web I discovered a few pages devoted to Romulan history. One of the more pertinent facts was that they had a government with a Senate which elected their chain of high command(www.tos...). This implies a type of democratic government, which even further implies a sense of the government being responsible to the people. This is the way things are supposed to work over here anyway. What this meant was that the government owed a responsibility to keep their people safe. Jarroc clearly saw what a war could do to his people. Even though the government was willing to forsake their people for war, Jarroc was not willing to let that happen.

Taking the Test :: Essays Papers

Taking the Test Many essays have been written that one could describe as touching, or something one could easily relate to. A very good example is â€Å"Taking the Test† by David Groff. He writes about taking an AIDS test, and records all his feelings and emotions as he waits for, and receives, what could be something that may lead to a death sentence. This essay is enjoyed by many people, because it is touching, it is easy to relate to the pressure, and stress that is connected with taking a test, and it is a new, recent subject that could, or does, affect people now. This essay is very touching. The reader feels very sympathetic towards the man taking the test. Even more so because the author announces that he is gay. The way he describes his emotions and feelings, fear, confusion, and loneliness, is very moving. He notices very small things because he almost believes he is infected, and it makes everything that much more precious. The way he makes everything sound very beautiful, as he describes it, is understandable, despite the fact that he is awaiting his sentence, â€Å"life or death,† because even though HIV does not mean death, it means an inevitable pain, and suffering, if not physically, then mentally, and if not for you, then for the loved ones. Had he told the reader the outcome of the test, the reaction to the story would have been different. If he was positive, the reader would become overly sympathetic, overlooking the reason for the story which was not sympathy, but to teach a lesson, â€Å"As long and as well as you can, live, live.† (Groff 75) Had the author been negative, the reader would have pushed the essay away, again overlooking the lesson, and thinking that the author worried for nothing. Groff pushes all the right buttons, keeping his audience begging for the outcome of the test. A reason that this essay is touching to many readers is because it is easy to relate to. Many people understand the pressure and stress that is connected with taking a test, even if it is a pop quiz in math. Unfortunately, many people know how it feels to take, and fail, an AIDS test. Many people know someone close to them who has taken the test and â€Å"failed.

On Men and Governments

The original intent of the Olympics was to bring peace to the warring regions of Greece through national unity and awareness. The modern Olympic Games, which began in 1892, changed the goals of the athletic competition because of the international movements surrounding women’s rights, the tensions that wars and social issues put on nationalism and political identities, and the economic gains that came with the Olympics. The women’s rights movement saw a dramatic increase in the 20th century as the role and portrayal of women changed with the times. The modern Olympic Games allowed for women to compete, beginning in the 1908 Olympics held in Great Britain. Sybil Newall competed in the archery competition (Doc. 2). In a time when only 2% of the competitors were women and the women’s suffrage movement was gaining speed, Sybil’s actions would have inspired women all over the world to take more charge and to fight for more rights. In 1995, Hassiba Boulmerka was quoted in an interview concerning her Olympic experience in 1992. She said that her wins gave not only her confidence, but gave confidence to all of the women in her country who â€Å"[were] capable of becoming athletes, but psychologically, they didn’t think so† (Doc 8). In a predominantly Muslim country, a woman competing in shorts would challenge the social norm and the way that women were seen tremendously. Boulmerka made this statement because she saw the women’s rights movement and wanted to keep inspiring women so that more of the Olympics could be shaped by women. Wars during this period rocked the world and everyone in it. In the first modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the movement, made a statement saying that with the addition of the modern Olympics, the world would become a utopian place where every country was an ally of every country because the games would provide international and diplomatic peace rather that instigating war (Doc 1). The idea that the Olympics could provide international piece was shattered when the multiple wars broke out during this period: these wars not only pit country against country, but challenged athletes to beat the others in newer demanding ways. Arnold Lunn, of the British team in the 1936 games, recalls that the German teams tried hard not only to just beat the other athletes, but to prove â€Å"that Nazism was better than democracy† (Doc 3). The point of winning then was not just to win the medal, but to say that one’s country was inherently better than the losing teams home countries. Tensions from the Cold War put stress on the athletes in the 1952 games held in Finland. Bob Matthias, a U. S. ompetitor recalled that beating the enemy felt better than beating allies (Doc 4). The nationalism that the American media and government sent out during this time caused him to say this because it made him believe that to win the Cold War, we also had to beat the Soviets at everything else. Also during the Cold War games, the Soviet Union’s Olympic Organizing Committee stated that the reason Moscow was chosen to host the games was because the Soviet Union â€Å"[was] a beacon of peace, democracy, and social pr ogress† (Doc 6). This statement was made because the committee wanted the rest of the world to know how the Soviets saw themselves: as better than the United States. Ali Kabir of Pakistan stated that the reason that the men’s field hockey team didn’t do well in the 2000 Olympics was because â€Å"[their] social values [shrunk] from that of national pride to self-promotion† (Doc 10). He states that because the country’s men didn’t have a strong sense of national identity, they could not actively compete hard enough to win. The modern Olympic movement was also shaped by the economic factors that went into hosting the Olympic Games and having advertising rights. Ryotaro Azuma, mayor of Japan during the 1964 games in Tokyo, stated that not only did the country need the games to get it out of the post-war mentality in the eyes of other nations, but so that it could rise to a world power in trade, which it likely wouldn’t have done without the help of the Olympics (Doc 5). Not only were the Olympics shaped by trade, but they were shaped by advertisers and sponsors. A Japanese economic journal recorded that Korea â€Å"failed to avail itself of an opportunity to display its industrial and economic power† because it wasn’t selected to be a sponsor of the 1998 games (Doc 7). The International Olympic Committee’s prices for broadcast rights went up from 100 million (USD) to almost 1. 4 billion in a span of 20 years. (Doc 9). Only countries that could afford that could have a chance to have broadcasting rights, so many couldn’t buy these and were left out from participating in an aspect of the games. Another document from a citizen and not a newspaper or a team member could be useful in analyzing the effect as then we could see how the public saw the Olympics change over time with the addition of different factors, such as women or the tensions during wars. The modern Olympics were changed and sculpted by the aspects of a changing world. Because of political identities and the rise of nationalism, the women’s rights movement, and economic factors on a global market, the modern games worked out differently than ever could have been imagined by those who created it.

American Involvment in World War I Essay

This investigation assesses American involvement in World War I before military intervention, and how this led to military intervention. In order to assess these causes, one must examine America’s involvement in the war before combat, the events that launched America’s military intervention in the war, American sentiments about the war before military intervention, and Woodrow Wilson’s actions before the war. Two sources used in the essay, America’s Great War: World War One and the American Experience by Robert H.  Ziegler and Woodrow Wilson’s speech to congress on April 2nd, 1917 are evaluated for their origins, values, purposes and limitations. The investigation does not asses the pre-war situations of any countries but the United States, and does not asses American military involvement during the First World War Summary Of Evidence Prior to 1917, America was already deeply involved in the First World War, though they did not have troops fighting in the trenches overseas. First, American involvement in the war was purely as a producer and creditor to the Allied Powers. The war, while catastrophic for the countries involved in its atrophied trench battles, provided America with an astronomical boost to its economy, from 2 billion dollars in exported materials in 1913 to nearly 6 billion dollars in exports in 1916. This economic boom was mainly brought on by Britain’s dependency on American foodstuffs and manufactured goods.. The economic ties between America and Britain tightened with public subscription loans. By 1917, Britain had borrowed 2. 7 billion dollars from American creditors. Historian Paul Koistinen wrote â€Å"Without American supplies, Britain could not continue the war; without American financing of almost 10$ million a day †¦ Britain would exhaust its reserves of gold and securities by March 1917. Its dependence was total. Cutting back procurement . . . would produce disaster in England† Originally, America did nothing but reap the reward of â€Å"neutrality†. When Americas turned their eyes to the stage of war in Europe, they were truly terrified. One Chicago newspaper joked â€Å"A hearty vote of thanks to Columbus for having discovered America†. This sentiment was echoed by many American citizens, who showed pride in President Woodrow Wilson’s decision to declare America a neutral state in the war. Americans thoughts on the war lied in their bloodlines, as a majority of Americans were descendants from either Allied or Central Powers nations. Most Americans, early in the war at least, didn’t understand the war or why it was being fought, and were glad that America wasn’t involved. However, these robust Anti-Involvement sentiments began to fade after May 7 1915, the day of the Lusitania crisis. German U-Boats torpedoed and sunk a passenger liner in British waters, killing nearly 1,200 civilians, including 128 American citizens. The murder of these innocents set off the first widespread pro war feelings in Americans. This outrage was justified, but was also heightened by yellow journalism that demonized Germans as barbarians and deranged killers. President Woodrow Wilson, taking note of this event and the outrage it caused, warned the Germans that any further violation of American rights would result in â€Å"Strict Accountability† for these actions. This, as well as the bloody war dragging on in Europe, brought up the question of military preparedness in the United States. By 1916, pro-preparedness sentiment was widespread, as 135,000 supporters of expanding the military marched on New York City’s 5th Avenue, for 12 hours. In Chicago, 130,000 telephone operators moved in the shape of an American flag, goose-stepping down State Street. In the election of 1916, Woodrow Wilson ran against Charles E. Hughes, who was backed by Theodore Roosevelt, former president and staunch Allied Powers supporter, as well as an advocate for military preparedness. Woodrow Wilson won the election by only about 600,000 popular votes. However, these sentiments were met with an equally strong anti-militarism force, saying that in a chaotic world, America must be a beacon and resist entrance into war, and resist building an enormous military. Strong anti-militaristic sentiments began to fade when British intelligence officers intercepted a telegram sent from Foreign Secretary of the German Empire Arthur Zimmermann to the German ambassador of Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt. This infamous proposal, known as the Zimmermann note, proposed that Mexico wage war against the United States. Throughout America’s neutrality in World War 1, President Wilson had acted as a mediator, but with tension building to a terminal level and with the Zimmermann note, Wilson was forced to ask congress to bolster America’s military forces on April 2nd 1917. Later in the same year, America sent its first military forces oversees Evaluation Of Sources Robert H Zieger: America’s Great War: World War One and the American Experience Origins- (2000) Zieger is a respected labor historian Purpose- Provides an in-depth look at American involvement in the war. Value- The economic statistics and quotations from various primary and secondary sources allow the reader to evaluate the validity of the claims Zieger makes. Limitations- does not provide any new opinions or claims Woodrow Wilson, April 2nd 1917 to congress to persuade congress to bring the United States Origin- German hostile actions towards the United States Purpose- Persuade congress to declare war on Germany and the Central Powers Value- clearly outlined Wilson’s reason’s for entering war Limitations- doesn’t explain the underlying causes of military intervention or pressure from big business to declare war for entry  Analysis America’s involvement in World War One began with producing vital weapons and foodstuffs for the Allied Powers, as well as economically supporting the Allied nation’s governments. Throughout the war, the German Empire repeatedly acted belligerently towards the neutral United States, sinking passenger lines, killing Amer ican civilians. Tension with Germany also rose after the proposal to Mexico asking the Mexican army to wage war on the United States. These belligerent German acts, however, would not have held as much effect as they did if American political opinions had not been shifted by the German actions, the economic pressure of close ties to the Allied nations, or social pressure brought along by shifting political attitudes. These all contributed to tensions growing regarding American military involvement I World War One President Woodrow Wilson was a stalwart proponent of American neutrality in the First World War for the almost all of the war, but the American political climate at the time forced his hand.. He was able to win this election because most voters at the time had pro-neutrality sentiments. However, Wilson took into account his slim margin of victory, and the Republican’s yearning for a prepared military. These yearnings were brought on mainly by the Lusitania sinking. A major proponent for intervention, the previously mentioned Theodore Roosevelt, denounced these acts of the German Empire as acts of piracy. Roosevelt’s popularity made these statements extremely well heard. This shift in public opinion helped force President Wilson’s hand. America’s involvement in World War One before it entry in combat was extremely vital, producing millions of dollars’ worth of material for Britain and France, as well as financing the war through small loans. This dependency was built by J. P Morgan, who traded nearly 3 billion dollars’ worth of goods with the allied powers. By 1917, America had invested 2. 7 billion dollars in Britain alone. Historian Paul Koistinen’s quote regarding British dependency on American trade shows how deeply entrenched America was with the war’s affairs pre involvement. These statistics show that the allied powers were completely dependent on American economic support American corporations had an immense amount of wealth in the war, and if they Allied powers lost the war, all of their investments would be worth nothing, because the countries that had been responsible for repaying these debts would no longer exist. The war was taking a detrimental toll on the populations of the warring nations, and the war was almost completely atrophied. It was only a matter of time before one side lost, and it was essential to American business that it was the Allied Powers. Had the allied powers lost to the central powers, American financers would have lost 2. 7 billion dollars as a whole, 2. 7 billion dollars that were needed to give to American business, 2. 7 billion dollars that banks needed to stay in business. Throughout pre-involvement America, as early as the dawn of the war, so called â€Å"hyphenated Americans†, had opinions on what side of the war to support, dependent on their country of origin. German-Americans, the largest ethnic group at the time , supported what they thought of as their motherland, Germany, therefore supported the Central Powers. The second largest ethnic group, Irish-Americans, saw Great Britain as an oppressor, therefore were also supporters of the central powers. However, most Americans at the time were still pro-neutrality. A Chicago newspaper, expressing thanks to Columbus, wrote an article on the blessing of the Atlantic Ocean. This was a popular sentiment at the time, and many Americans were proud of Wilson’s decision to be neutral. After the sinking of American ocean liner Lusitania the support of neutrality began to fade. Before the Lusitania disaster, however, 92 ships had been sunken by aggressive German action. None of these attacks had gained as much publicity, partially due to the fact that the previous sinking’s hadn’t been as destructive. But this was also due to the fact that the Lusitania sinking was grabbed onto by yellow journalists. â€Å"The blood of these murdered victims cries for vengeance. If that cry is unheard, the people of the United States will always bear upon them the stigma of the greatest humiliation ever put upon a nation. Writes a reporter from the Toronto Telegram. President Wilson demanded that German U-Boats stop sinking civilian liners, and if they continued to do so, they would be met with military retaliation. This didn’t stop Germans from sinking boats, and Wilson’s failure to take action against them infuriated Americans. Observing the protests in American cities at the time, one can judge that huge masses of people were strongly in favo r of interventionism. Conclusion The process of the American military joining the Allied Powers seemed inevitable from the start of the war, but still took hostile action and over reaction to spark military involvement. America’s pre-war economic ties to Europe and America’s reliance on trade with these nations during the war made America’s involvement with these nations too deep to let them lose the war, therefore forcing combat. Woodrow Wilson’s strong stance on neutrality couldn’t stand up to the enormous pressure he faced from the people of the United States.

Malaysia Race Relation Essay

In my opinion, the state of race relations in Malaysia has been good despite the many political agenda that has been thrown onto us. Yes, there are many instances that we feel like our rights have been denied because of our racial background and certain races are given more preference. I have heard of the 1Malaysia concept, but I think we don’t need to be told to be united. We have come such a long way that it should already be embedded in our hearts and minds that we are united. Unfortunately, you can still see racial discrimination and polarisation. There is still this ethno-centric view that the Malays are the dominant group and their rights must be protected, and non Malays are forever the outsiders. For the concept to succeed, I think the government should stop with the race politics. It’s tiring, really. We grew up with application forms asking us to tick our race. We should stop painting a negative image of the other races, stop thinking about ‘us’ and ‘them’ and focus on ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘Malaysians’. No one should be made uncomfortable in their own home. A dear Chinese friend of mine said to me once, â€Å"I don’t feel patriotic because I am not made to feel like Malaysia is my home, and I don’t feel an affinity to China because I have never lived there. † But even with all this said, I think we have such a high tolerance for our fellow friends of different races. Even though there is ongoing racial tension, we do not take it out on the other races. We do rally for the well being of our own race without offending the others. A great example of our unity would be definitely seen during the festive seasons. Every single open house you go to regardless the festival, Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Christmas, it would be mix of every other race coming together. The food prepared are taken into consideration of the other races taboo. In conclusion, I think Malaysians are truly tolerant towards each other. In my generation, I personally think race is no longer a social issue and everyone gets along with every other person regardless the race.

Reflection Journals Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Reflection Journals - Essay Example Reflection. The above summary shows the importance of reducing lead poisoning. Lead poisoning can be avoided. Lead poisoning can be reduced to allowable levels. Lead poisoning can be acquired by inhaling lead that if floating in the air or eating lead-contaminated food. Sometimes people unknowingly drink lead from crystal clear tap water.Hazardous Effects of Lead Poisoning. Lead poisoning can destroy the average person’s health. The excessive intake of lead elements can hinder the development of the brain. Lead triggers the malfunctioning of the human nervous system and reduces the children’s intelligence capacity. Children are most susceptible to lead poisoning. The pregnant woman’s taking of lead elements will harm the fetus (Hembra, 2008). Government Must Act to Prevent Lead Poisoning. The government agencies cooperate to eradicate lead poisoning from the environment. The government’s environmental protection agency or EPA monitors and implements lead p oisoning programs. To help reduce lead poisoning incidences, the government agencies disseminate lead poisoning information to the public in order (Hemba, 2008).People should help eliminate Lead Poisoning. People should do their share to eliminate lead poisoning. To reduce lead poisoning, the parents must avoid lead-based jobs. The family should avoid lead-contaminated communities. The community must act to eliminate lead from entering the child’s body. The community leaders must distribute leaflets and other information on how to avoid being victims of lead poisoning.

Company law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Company law - Essay Example In instances where calls are not met, the shares are forfeited. The main advantage of a no liability company is that the investor has a chance of pulling out if the company has no future. S 112(2) provides that a no liability company must be a mining company, which has a company constitution stating its objects in mining. The provision of section S 148(4) is that a no liability company must use â€Å"No liability† or â€Å"NL† at the end of the company's name. The no liability companies restricted to companies that have an object of mining only. The concept of no liability increases investment in the industry as it does not bind to its shareholders and they can withdraw from the company2. The difference between a no liability company and other companies is that a no liability company’s shareholders are not liable to pay calls on any unpaid shares. The conventional provision of companies is that the purchase of shares is a contract that is binding and shareholders bound to pay for the shares when there is a call. The position is that if the shareholder does not pay the share there is a forfeiture of the already paid up shares and the unpaid shares. The provision of a no liability company concerning the shares gives confidence investors in potentially uncertain mining undertaking. This is the reason because a shareholder who has unpaid shares can elect to pull out from the company without any legal penalties. In the case of Mac Stevenson, the best company would be a no liability company. The choice of a no liability company is because the mining ventures are uncertain and; therefore, investors are not willing to invest in such companies. The provisions of the no liability company tend to encourage investors into investing in mining companies. When there is uncertainty in the ventures of a company the investors would still be willing to buy the company shares. This is because they are not compelled to pay on making of calls to pay. The provisi ons of a no liability company fit this provision, as the shareholders who will purchase the share in the Mac Stevenson’s company will be more willing to invest in the venture. This is especially so since they are uncertain in the future of the company they will not be bound to pay the unpaid share if they will see no future for the company. The company will be a small company, according to 45A a company can be a large or a small company. Mac Stevenson’s company will fit into the small company. This is because it satisfies two of the criteria that are it should have gross operating revenue of less than $25m and its gross assets are less than $12.5m. Mac Stevenson’s company has operating revenue of less than $25m and its gross assets are not in excess of $12.5m, therefore, fits into the category of small business. On the other hand, Mac Stevenson can the can expand the business to install solar panels with the batteries3. However, the expansion cannot be done the any liability company as the provision of the no liability company restricts the operations of companies registered as no liability to only mining ventures and as such, they cannot operate other business dealings like installing solar panels4. The expansion realized when the company converts to a limited liability company. The general undertaking is that when a no liability mining company becomes