Role of Zoos in Conservation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Role of Zoos in Conservation - Essay Example Role of Zoos in Conservation The tropical rainforests have high humidity owing to excess moisture from rainfall, heavy cloud cover and transpiration due to loss of water from leaves. Rainforests are known to generate a majority of their own rain and precipitation. For instance, the Amazon generates almost half of its own rain. Rainforests have a characteristic vegetative structure with several layers named overstory canopy, understory, shrub layer, and ground level (Butler). The canopy is the dense part of the forest consisting of a ceiling of leaves and branches of closely spaced trees. The overstory is the upper canopy about 100-130 above the floor of the forest. The understory occurs below the canopy. The shrub layer is about 5-20 feet above the forest floor and mostly consists of shrubs and tree saplings (Butler). The wildlife varies based on which level of the forest it inhabits. Tropical rainforests have extremely high biological diversity. They are extremely important, complex yet fragile ecosystems. They , especially the Amazon rainforests, are considered the lungs of the planet because they recycle most of the carbon dioxide to oxygen. A vast majority, i.e. more than half of the world’s plant, animal and insect species live in tropical rainforests. At least 80% of human’s original diet came from tropical rainforests. They provide a large number of food and medicinal products. They are extremely vital for the maintenance of normal climate as well as the biological diversity of the planet. Tropical rainforests cover only about 6% of the earth’s surface.

Budgets Forecast for Energy Drink Company Essay

Budgets Forecast for Energy Drink Company - Essay Example Marginal costing takes into account variable costs during production while Fixed manufacturing overhead is treated as period costs. It is believed that only the variable costs are relevant to decision-making and that the reason why they are considered in production. Fixed manufacturing overheads will be incurred regardless there is production or not. Appendix 1 illustrates a cost statement using marginal costing. The contribution margin is positive; therefore the plan of manufacturing an energy drink is a viable one. The fixed costs are not useful in the decision-making process that is why contribution margin is used as it excluded fixed costs. Break-even analysis is used in showing the relationship between selling prices, sales volume, variable costs, fixed costs and profits at various levels of activity. It is also referred to as cost-volume-profit analysis. It used in determining the break-even point. BEP is the level of activity where the total revenue equals the total costs. Therefore, no profits are realized at the BEP. However, break-even analysis has its limitations. To begin with, breakeven analysis assumes that fixed cost, variable costs and sales revenue behaves are linear. However, this is not the case since some overhead costs may be stepped in nature. As a result, the straight sales revenue line and total cost line tend to curve beyond a certain level of production Another limitation of break-even analysis is that it assumes that all the stock produced is sold. Therefore, changes in stock levels are not taken into account in the breakeven chart. Finally, breakeven analysis is only suitable for providing information to relatively small companies that produce one type of products. Thus it’s not suitable for companies producing a different product. Forecasting is used in estimating future performance of the business. It is useful in the financial planning process which entails assessing future financial needs.

Affirmative Action Essay Example for Free

Affirmative Action Essay Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, â€Å"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.† This statement will always ring true especially on the subject of equal opportunity when it comes to employment and education here in the United States. It’s no secret that equality has been something America has always lacked, but at the same time has always been something America stood for. In fact it can be easily inferred that equality among all men has been something America has stride for since it gained independence from the British in 1776. Our founding fathers were the first to have this initial thought, that being best portrayed in the declaration of independence, which state’s We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.(qtd. In declaration of independence) To me this means our founding fathers believed that every man from birth has the god given right to a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but somewhere during Americas journey as a country it forgot it’s true creed and became it’s own tyrant preventing people from reaching their full potential while also denying it’s own citizens liberty and a pursuit to happiness. And although achieving equality in this country has been nothing short of easy with countless set backs and hypocritical ideas, equality among all its citizens is still something America does strides for, and nothing brings you direct equality quit like Affirmative Action does. If you consider affirmative action for its intentional purposes than Affirmative Action is very just, its purpose being to equalize the education and economic gap between minorities and causations. Although it is not a perfect method to achieving equality in this country, it is essential to accept it for why it’s been put into place and that it is all part of a process. Of course affirmative action is far from perfect and has a fair deal of problems, like promoting reverse discrimination while backing up negative stereotypes. I researched all of these aspects while pondering the question â€Å"is affirmative action still needed in today’s society?† In this paper I will be explaining what affirmative action is. The History behind affirmative action like how it all unfolded, who made it, and the history as to why it is in effect now. I will also list some pros and cons of affirmative action, how the United States could better affirmative action for the future and f inally a conclusion, which is my opinion on the topic. But what exactly is Affrimative action? Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment and education acceptance decisions. Universities with affirmative action policies generally set goals to increase diversity. Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates. And by no means is affirmative action supposed to harm anyone through reverse discrimination. The purpose was to create equal opportunity for the people who had been unjustly treated in the past. It was set out to correct this wrong, and make it right. But at the same time too often is Affrimative action is looked upon as a solution for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the evil disease of racial discrimination. Some would say Affirmative action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed cure for past and continuing discrimination. But all in all affirmative action is defined as â€Å"The positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity† (Fullinwider) Of course affirmative action has a very deep history to it, and to why it was put into place. Now that you understand the purpose for which it was made, le t me explain who made it and why affirmative action was created. The history of Affirmative action, the first step in affirmative action was the creation of it. President John F. Kennedy first introduced it in 1961. The following is in sections to show the timeline of affirmative action in the begging stages of its creation: * March 6, 1961 Executive Order 10925 makes the first reference to affirmative action (Timeline) President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds take affirmative action to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. * July 2, 1964 Civil Rights Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. (Timeline) * June 4, 1965 Speech defining concept of affirmative action In an eloquent speech to the graduating class at Howard University, President Johnson frames the concept underlying affirmative action, asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination: You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, you are free to compete with all the others, and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. (Timeline) * Sept. 24,1965 Executive Order 11246 enforces affirmative action for the first time (Timeline) Issued by President Johnson, the executive order requires government contractors to take affirmative action toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. The rest of the affirmative actions timeline from here on out is mainly just Supreme Court cases, which can help define what exactly it can do and what exactly it can’t do. * In the 1978 Supreme Court case University of California vs. Bakke, a white male named Allan Bakke claimed reverse discrimination because he was rejected twice from medical school while less-qualified minority students were admitted to fill a quota that required 18 out of every 100 places be filled with minorities. The Supreme Court ruled against inflexible quota systems, but did not outlaw affirmative action as a whole.(Timeline) Most of the lawsuits were against Universities since many universities also adopted affirmative action programs in the 1970s. These programs were aimed at increasing black enrollment and the number of black faculty. None more notable then Jenifer Gatz law suit again the University of Michigan â€Å"Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger.† It ruled that affirmative action fulfills a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The purpose of affirmative action policy shifted from redressing injustice to promoting values of diversity. But even after all these deciding cases on affirmative action it’s still a heated matter of dispute. After much legislation and many Supreme Court decisions, affirmative action continues to be controversial (Legal History, Ongoing Debates section, para. 1). These controversies lead to questions, which can only be answered by understanding why affirmative action was put into effect in the first place. It is important to remember affirmative action is still a work in progress to achieve something much bigger than any one individual. People tend to forget that and the history to why affirmative action was put into place. It cannot be denied that Americas history is full of mistreatment of minority individuals. Women did not have a chance to vote for nearly a century and half after the birth of the country. African Americans were captured and forced into slavery, Although the Thirteenth Amendment ended institutionalized slavery in the United States in 1865, African Americans were not treated equal to whites in the eyes of the law for nearly another century, they were considered only one third of citizen. So with the two hundred years of slavery coming to an abrupt end a new regime or prejudices was to come into effect. Of course even after the end of slavery African Americans were consistently denied employment, housing, and education. In the south discrimination was a daily routine supported by â€Å"Jim Crow laws.†(Affirmative action) Unjust social statues and norms were passed in the 1800s that establish separate, inferior, public facilities, schools, waiting rooms, railways cars, and restrooms for African Americans through out the country. This has caused a domino effect on our society that still seen today. Those outrageous social norms were practiced in America until late in the civil rights movement when president JFK finally acknowledged the struggle for equality and the idea of Affirmative Action was born. After President Kennedy’s assignation, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It banned discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and sex in the areas of employment, public facilities, and government programs. The idea of equality in America, that every man is created equally was slowly and surly becoming more realistic, due largely to Martin Luther Kings efforts. Here are Dr. King’s own words on the idea of Affirmative action from his 1963 book â€Å"why cant we wait† King states: â€Å"Among the many vital jobs to be done, the nation must not only radically readjust its attitude toward the Negro in the compelling present, but must incorporate in its planning some compensatory consideration for the handicaps he has inherited from the past. It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis?† – Martin Luther King J.R (Wise) In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? King argued: A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.(wise) Continuing: â€Å"†¦for Two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages: potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of Americas wealth could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro: it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races.†- Martin Luther King J.R (Wise) It is clear that these are some of the reasons why Martin Luther King J.R and others thought affirmative action should be and eventually was put into effect. A large part as to why affirmative action is in effect is so Compensation can be made to those who are at a disadvantage due to past racial biases and predjedism. You should now have a better idea as to what exactly affirmative action is, what it’s intentions are, the history behind who made it and the deeper history as to why it is still in effect and why it was originally put into effect. Affirmative action is however a major controversy in the United States, ever since it’s beginning, the concept of affirmative action raised difficult questions. â€Å"Many civil rights activists see affirmative action as a necessary step in achieving equality for groups that had faced discrimination in the past. However, critics of affirmative action argued that individuals should be treated on their own merits without regard to color, national origin, or sex.†(Affirmative Action) The Benefits of Affirmative Action â€Å"The one benefit of affirmative action is to correct past discriminations such as the mistreatment of women and slavery. This remedial justification of affirmative action recognizes that wrongs have been committed in the past and acknowledges a moral obligation to set things right† (Affirmative Action Pros and Cons, The Origins Of, Legal Treatment Of, Political and Social Debates, The Future, Pros and Cons section, para. 1). It is important for injustices to be redressed. â€Å"Slavery and institutionalized racism have not been redressed yet in America and around the world. In order for justice to be served, it is necessary for the main losers of racism in America (African Americans) to be compensated for their loses through affirmative action.† (Affirmative Action) And affirmative action does just that, not in the sense of giving physical money, but through opportunities in education and in life. The following are the benefits affirmative action provides: Affirmative action has provided many opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds and income levels who ordinarily would not be considered for admission to colleges and universities. This means that the pool of talent coming out of the higher education system is larger and better able to contribute as productive members of the workforce. Affirmative action has had a profound effect on employment hiring and promoting practices. Historically, â€Å"close to 90% of all jobs are filled without being advertised, with the majority of positions going to friends, relatives, or acquaintances of company employees.†(Wise) This is often the case with a lot of jobs. Unfortunately it can boil down to whom one knows not what they know. The result of this practice is that employers often end up with employees who are not the best person for the job if it were properly advertised. Affirmative action has encouraged many companies to engage in employment practices that set minimum standards of job definition, recruiting, outreach, and evaluation that result in choosing the right person for the job. Finding the right person for the job or the promotion is critical in letting business efficiently utilize the workforce and allow each person to reach his or her full potential. Diversity in itself is desirable, it has been since the birth of this country, but it won’t always occur if left to chance. But when affirmative action is working like its initial purpose was intended too miraculous things can happen, and there are good facts to back that up. â€Å"Between 1981 and 2001, the total number of degrees awarded to Native Americans rose by 151.9% because of affirmative action policies.† (Patterns) Also, from â€Å"1982 to 1995, there has been an increase in the percent of black managers from 5 to 7 percent. Hispanics have shown a 3 percent increase from 5 percent in 1982.†(Patterns) Affirmative Action has been successful in providing minorities with opportunities. â€Å"At the same time a recent study has shown a person with a white sounding name has a 50% more change of getting a call back from a interview than those with black sounding name even when qualifications are indistinguishable.† (Tim Wise) Again equality is desirable but it won’t always occur if left to chance. â€Å"Eliminating affirmative action can lead to the re-segregation of higher education. When affirmative action was outlawed at the University of Texas in 1995, the number of black students at the UT Law School dropped from 65 in 1996 to 11 in 1997 and Latino student enrollments have been cut in half since the decision.† (Patterns) this isn’t necessarily a pro, but interesting enough. With affirmative action being banned in Texas the number of white students also dramatically increased while the number of Asians skyrocketed. I guess the best-qualified applicants where accepted. Here is a statistics that shows why affirmative action is still needed. For â€Å"every dollar earned by men, women earn 74 cents, African American women earn 63 cents and Latina women earn 57 cents.† (Patterns) This unjust statistics will continue with out the help of something like affirmative action. It is the reality inequalities like this that suggest maybe affirmative action should be left alone till equality is fully reached or a better solution is thought of.

Movement of Goods and Freedom of Establishment Policies

Movement of Goods and Freedom of Establishment Policies INTRODUCTION In an examination of the various freedoms that are protected by the European Convention (EC), there are two that have provoked at different times praise and criticism, champions and conquerors. This paper will analyse that the roadmap that has been followed by the European Court of Justice[1] while interpreting EC Article 28[2] and EC A43[3]. Before splitting the discussion between free movement of goods and establishment, it is important to lay the foundation by an overview of the federalism debate that is natural to the EC and to Europe in general. The federalism question concerns the division of jurisdiction, power, and authority, between the central body (in this case the EC) and the individual states that are part of the central body. As the EC has developed, various autonomies have diminished. The ECJ is acknowledged as supreme, and Woods[4] notes that the court has expanded the Treaty into areas that were not envisaged originally, for example in Commission v Council[5]. The purpose of this paper then is to analyse the relationship between establishing a common market and respecting the autonomy and policies of individual states in the context of movement of goods and freedom of establishment. LEGISLATION? Craig[6] raises and interesting point with regards to the litigation on these points. In an effort to get true harmony, the simple solution would have been to issue Commission legislation which would have compelled the states to harmonise their laws. Craig blames the lack of speed in the Community for this failure, a situation which raises the question of the effectiveness of the courts as an adjudicator in this battle. While the ECJ do have jurisdiction, the decisions which will be examined presently have fluctuated as different times bring different concerns. The case-by-case approach is one that should surely be addressed by a legislative rather than a judicial body. Regardless of the lines that the courts have developed, there is surely a strong argument that they were not the right body for this job. It is important to understand what the individuals would be interested in gaining from the relationship. It is fair to say that the goals enumerated in the EC Treaty indicate that the Commission would want the maximum control in order to establish a common market, free of barriers. For the state, it cannot be expected that they will retain full autonomy; that would have been a sacrifice made when signing the treaty. The ideal situation though would be sufficient autonomy to be able to regulate so as to protect the interests of their constituency. WPJ Wils[7] summed this up in his article as â€Å"partial integration† which was described by him as the â€Å"pragmatic approach reconciling the desire for integration with the desire for government intervention†. The best alternative would be a clear and concise set of rules from the ECJ which would enable them to know for certain what they are and are not permitted to do; though this would be a poor substitute for the previous scenario. FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS The EC Treaty is based in a large part around the development of a concept of a common market. A crucial aspect of this is the free movement of goods, with the apex being a market where there are no barriers and goods are sold in exactly the same conditions and situations in states a, b, and c. On the other hand, the states argue that to further the individual causes of their state, the national government must have the power to regulate, at least to a certain degree, the movement of goods. This section will deal first with Article 28 which sets out the boundaries of the intervention; it will then proceed to deal with Article 30 which addresses the interests of the member states. Intervention of the federal government. Article 28 states that: Quantative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. By itself this Article poses more questions than it answers; as such the interpretation of the ECJ is crucial. The attitude of the ECJ has been inconsistent when drawing the federalist line, although on certain points they have remained consistently pro central governance. The limited consistencies In Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi[8] the ECJ took a broad view as to the nature of a quantative restriction, including â€Å"measures which amount to a total or partial restraint† of trade. Since Geddo[9], this has not been questioned, and it remains a firm foundation against the influence of national governance. Likewise, it has never been seriously doubted that the second part of Article 28 addressed measures that had equivalent results (MEQRs) and that national intervention could be struck down if the court deemed them to be an MEQR. The only question has been what constitutes an MEQR and this was largely resolved by Directive 70/50 which in Article 2 outlined the possible legislation that might constitute an MEQR. Discriminatory measures: national intervention rejected. On one point, it can be stated that the ECJ has awarded an overwhelming victory to the central government. This is where the restriction has a discriminatory element to it; for example in Commission v Italy[10] imported cars were compelled to go through a rigorous registration procedure. This was struck down as being a discriminatory restraint of trade. Likewise the court has struck down attempts by a state to promote domestic goods or efforts at price fixing. Indeed this analysis of the strict application to discrimination is included for three purposes only. First, to emphasise the first victory against state intervention. Second because of Commission v Ireland[11] where the court were content to ignore the prima facie pleadings of Ireland and examine the substantive result of their self interest promotions. Craig[12] points out that this is the theme which the ECJ have followed. The third reason is the indication that, not content with giving the central government a points decision, the ECJ have attempted to land a knockout punch. In Openbaar Ministere v Van Tiggele[13] the ECJ said that if a non-discriminatory attempt to fix prices affected even a single product adversely, the law would breach Article 28. The effect of this case is to throw down the gauntlet to states and make the dedication to an open market even more convincing. There is one way for the state to save a measure; by utilising Article 30. This provides that prohibitions can be saved on the grounds of public morality, public policy, public security, health and life, protection of national treasures, and protection of industrial and commercial property. On the face of this article, it seems to belay the earlier statement of victory for the common market. States have found though that utilising the article has major difficulties. Firstly, the courts have declared that the state has the burden of proof (Openbaar[14]). Secondly, as a general principle the list is exhaustive and cannot be added to over time Non-discriminatory measures In reality, it is hardly surprising that the ECJ has reacted strongly against discriminatory measures; the real battle ground has been measures that are applicable to both domestic and foreign goods. While A28 makes no mention of any requirement of discrimination, the Dassonville case obiter noted in paragraph 5 that there should be no need for discrimination in order to be caught by A28. Far from being simple, this field has been where the battle has been most fiercely fought. Cassis de Dijon In Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein[15] Germany invoked a rule that liqueurs were required to have a certain alcoholic content (regardless of nationality). The ECJ developed the Dassonville obiter to apply A28 to national rules that do not discriminate. Fundamentally, the ECJ summed up the approach in paragraph 14(4) by stating the principle of mutual recognition. Once a good is lawfully marketed in state x, it should be lawful to market it in any state in the bloc. This is a huge leap from Dassonville, a leap which on its face renders a national power helpless in the face of potential consequences. Craig notes[16] that in one step the ECJ places the states â€Å"on the defensive†. It can even be stated, and this paper contends, that this does not reflect the extreme state of affairs. An analogy can be drawn with company law in the United States. With no federal control, the states engaged in a race to attract companies to their shores. Delaware prevailed by offering such laws as provide minimum governance and convenient laws. The result has been that the companies have flocked to Delaware. The result of Cassis is that were one state to create a lenient set of laws, any product that passes muster should be accepted in every other member state. This ‘Cassis control’ leaves states not on the defensive, rather defenceless. Is there no limit to the ‘Cassis control’? This bleak state of affairs is not though one of total disaster. Cassis applies only so far as the ECJ rules that the boundary extends. The crucial term is what â€Å"affects the free movement of goods†? Weatherill and Beaumont[17] emphasised the potential for domination by listing a number of hypothetical situations where irrelevant regulations could be viewed as having a marginal effect on trade. The path the court has taken has been to draw a distinction between dual-burden rules where a product has to satisfy the rules of both state a and b, and equal-burden rules which apply to all goods after they have entered the country and so would not have been applied to the goods before. Cassis clearly governs the former; the crucial question is whether it also applies to the latter, for if it does then the national legislatures may as well take a white flag to the next European summit for their battle will be truly lost. The difficulty is that the court has been ambivalent on the issue with the court in Obel[18] stating that the cases were outside A28, while in Cinetheque SA v Federation Natioanle des Cinemas Francais[19] the court ruled that such a regulation could be within A28. The court it seems has resolved the matter in Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard[20]. The ECJ followed the initial article by E White[21], who contended that under the application of the article and to retain needed autonomy for the national legislatures, all equal-burden regulations should be outside the ambit of A28. On the face of it, this appears to be a boost for the states. Indeed, this would appear to grant back to the states the freedom and autonomy to regulate in this area, so long as the regulation applies to the characteristics of the goods and is not a regulation of the type that the goods would have had to satisfy in their original state. This though is not the complete story. The first point is that the decision in Keck[22] received a great deal of criticism, from scholars, practitioners and judges alike. While this doesn’t affect the decision, it has led to uncertainty in applying Keck[23]. The result has been that a new question has been raised as to what the courts meant when permitting regulation as to sale arrangements. A typical example comes from Societe d’Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicite SA[24] where advertising was seen as a method of sales promotion and so outside the article. Meanwhile, in Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und Vertreibs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag[25] the court held that because there was an effect on the product, it was within the ambit of A28. The opening section considered the range of scenarios from the perspective of the state, from ideal to least desirable. It is clear that the current jurisprudence provides the tae with neither the autonomy that it needs to protect the interests of the state, nor the certainty which would be needed in order to determine what the state may and may not regulate. Conclusion In conclusion what can be said about the line drawn by the courts? There is no doubt that the courts have used Dassonville as a launching pad for an assault on the autonomy of the member states. The only beacons of light for the state are the Keck authority, which has already been weakened by Gourmet and by academic criticism, and the policy exemptions which as has been discussed above will be interpreted strictly by the courts. The overwhelming conclusion must be that the line has been drawn in favour of the common market. FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT The second element of the EC Treaty is the section concerning the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 43. This goes hand in hand with freedom of movement, with the distinction that it applies to the right of individuals to maintain a permanent or settled place of business. Once again, the dispute at issue here is the battle between policies and a common market. It is conceivable that individual states may have concerns about allowing free establishment. Issues such as promotion of domestic small businesses and potential concerns about lack of qualifications are all issues which states may wish to regulate. This section will determine how the ECJ has reconciled these rights with the goal of a common market. In many regards there are parallels with free movement of goods and A28, as the crucial battle lines have been drawn over measures and regulations that are non-discriminatory. However, as before, the starting point must be those regulations that discriminate against new arrivals. Discriminatory tactics: any point at all? Unlike free movement of goods, the answer to this question is implicit within A43. The second paragraph clearly and explicitly states that an individual has the right of establishment â€Å"under the conditions laid down†. This was confirmed by the General Programme[26] which detailed the requirement that restrictive laws be removed. The point therefore is clear; the state may not discriminate against individuals entering the state for the purpose of to establish themselves as a company or in self-employment. Non-discriminatory measures? On a first reading of the article, the implication seems to be that non-discriminatory measures will pass muster. Indeed, the second paragraph states that the right must be acknowledged â€Å"under the conditions laid down for its own nationals†. Given the strict approach that the courts have taken in other cases though, it is worth examining whether they have held true to this definition or have developed it, much as they did with Dassonville in the area of free movement of goods. The early authorities appeared to bode well for the national authorities; in Commission v Belgium[27] the Advocate General stated that there was no need to analyse the question of proportionality because the law was non-discriminatory. A close analysis of this decision is not needed to iterate the importance of it. As long as a state could convince the ECJ that their law applied to everyone, they would still be able to control the establishment within their country. While they would be restricted, they would at least have a wide range of options open to them, and could exercise these options while retaining their autonomy and moulding them based on the needs of their constituency. The fight however, soon began to turn, at least with regards to the initial intervention of the ECJ. In Ordre des Avocats v Klopp[28] the court struck down a French law which applied to nationals and non-nationals alike. This could be excused, as the French law prevented the lawyer from holding a second office within the Community, which provided another ground to strike the law down. Nonetheless, the decision would have been troubling for the defenders of states rights and policies. The volte face was confirmed in Gullung v Conseil de l’Ordre des Avocats[29] when the ECJ ruled that a non-discriminatory law could be struck down if not sufficiently objective. Just as the Belgium case was significant for the states, so this was for the common market. Regardless of the overall result following a determining of objectivity and state policy, the decision meant that the court would investigate the reasons for the regulation. This by itself was a strike against the states autonomy and ability to self-govern. The hits just keep on coming for state’s rights. In the next section, there will be a discussion on the defences that a state can raise, indeed they are similar to those discussed for free movement of goods. Before that though, the ECJ has provided one last marker to further encroach on the states right to regulate. In Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsverenigning voor de Metaalnijverheif[30] the court ruled that upon finding a non-discriminatory restriction to fall within A43/59 (the test was originally used in the context of free movement of services but has been extended to establishment) the state will have to show that it can be objectively justified in pursuance of a public interest. On the one hand this is a positive step for the states as the ECJ is recognising their right to regulate under certain circumstances. The difficulty is that not only is an objective standard required, a standard that will judge the state not merely on what is best for that state, but also that the ECJ was prepared in Van Binsbergen[31] to hold that the measure was not sufficiently tailored to the particular aim of the regulation. For a state attempting to hold on to autonomy, this is arguably the worst possible result, to have the ECJ making recommendations about internal legislative functions. The other complication with this proportionality test arises from the complications for a state in assessing the likelihood of prevailing at the ECJ. Even on the question of what constitutes proportionality, the case law has mushroomed into a determination of the various factors that need to be taken into account. In Criminal Proceedings against Webb[32] the court made a list of factors that would be taken into account, including whether or not a similar test existed in the individuals home state. The re-claiming of territory lost As with free movement of goods, there are exceptions which the states can attempt to fit their regulations into. Once again, the enumeration of these in the Treaty (Articles 46 and 56) is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand the court can at worse apply them strictly; they cannot remove the right to a defence from the members. On the other hand, the ECJ have used the enumeration to state that the at least for discriminatory measures, only those enumerated defences may be utilised (Bond van Adverteerders v Netherlands([33]. There is one area that the ECJ has deemed sacrosanct. A55 states that the rules on establishment are null and void when related to â€Å"the exercise of official authority†. In Reyners v Belgium[34] the ECJ held that this had to be related to sovereignty and† majesty† of the States. Unsurprisingly the states have seized on this to try and hit a metaphorical home run by forcing as many measures through this loop-hole. It is possibly because of Luxembourg’s wide ranging approach to the Reynors[35] case that the ECJ drew the narrowest possible interpretation emphasising that simply because a profession exercised some official duties, the entire profession could not be exempt. The official purpose exception may still be invoked but it will be an exception rather than the rule. In passing it should also be noted that the states do have some rights reserved to the. Under A43 there is express mention of the non-appliance of the article to citizens of that nation. Although the ECJ have wavered on this point, in Ministere Public v Auer[36] the ECJ held that the ‘foreign’ qualification was crucial. Thus there is nothing to prevent state a denying rights to their own citizens that to any other states citizen would be in breach of the article. This is likely to be a pyrrhic victory given that few states will have any desire to hinder their own citizens. Last chance saloon The final chance for the national authorities to claim some of the territory in this battle is with the ability to derogate that is contained in A46(1). The texts, in particular Barnard and Craig, set out the individual case law for each of the exceptions. This section simply focuses on the general approach in an effort to ascertain how helpful the derogation powers are to the national authorities. The first benefit that the states have is that it is not merely the ECJ who have commented on the derogations. Directive 64/221 Article 2 sets out the guidelines that must be followed. While the states may have hoped for more sympathy from the Commission than they received from the ECJ, they will have been disappointed. The articles merely set out a number of restrictions, including the point that the states cannot use it merely to further their own economic agendas. Indeed, the situation for the States is so unappealing that Craig emphasises (at788) that there is â€Å"little scope for manoeuvre†¦by the Member States†. Possibly the most illustrative case in this area is Van Duyn v Home Office[37] where the UK convinced the ECJ that they should be allowed to derogate in the case of an individual who was entering to work for the Church of Scientology. The ECJ ruled that it was irrelevant that the practice of this religion was not universally condemned. While this might encourage states, they would have been concerned by a later part of the judgement where the court emphasised that had she merely been a member the derogation would not have been permitted. In many ways this was typical of the ECJ’s approach to these case; advancing the cause of the States one step and with the same movement moving them two steps back. Equally illustrative was Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Koln[38] where the court took the sizeable stride of stating that past criminal convictions may not be enough to derogate from the articles. It I fair to say that this would frustrate any official in a State who would find that their hands were being tied, not on n integral international level, but on the basic and fundamental needs of national security. CONCLUSION The first conclusion is, and has to be that no definite answer can be given. As long as the federalism debate is answered by the ECJ and not the Commission, the answer will depend on the date of the cases and the environment at that particular time. It can be said though that regarding both free movement of goods and freedom of establishment, any regulations that are deemed to be discriminatory will be prima facie void and that it will be exceedingly difficult to persuade the court of the need for the regulation. Regarding non-discriminatory regulations, the situation also looks bleak for national policies with Cassis in particular emphasising central dominance. There are chinks of light within the Treaty itself and within parts of the ECJ jurisprudence. Overall though the path that the ECJ is taking leads in one direction only, and either they or the Commission will eventually minimise national policies to the point of virtual insignificance. Possibly the most clinical analysis can be found in Usher at 83 when he writes: It can hardly be denied that the Community now exercises considerable substantive powers which the Member States no longer exercise or lay claim to exercise- the exceptional cases being so infrequent as to be regarded as a major crises. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Barnard C‘The Substantive Law of the EU’ The Four Freedoms 1st Edition Published by Oxford Press Burrows F‘Free Movement in EC Law’ Published by Oxford Press Craig P /De Burca C‘EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials’ 2nd Edition Published by Oxford Press Levasseur A‘The Law o the EU, A new Constitutional Order’ Published by Carolina Academic Press Rometsch D (edited)‘The EU and member states. Towards institutional fusion?’ Published by European Policy Research Unit Series Usher J‘EC Law and National Law. The Irreversible Transfer?’ Published by George Allen Woods L‘Free Movement of Goods and Services within the EC’ Published by European Business Law Library ARTICLES- GOODS Dirks K‘The Market Citizen: Economic Integration and Citizenship in the European Union’ Columbia University, 2005, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/pdf-files/dirks.pdf Gormley LW ‘Cassis de Dijon and the Communication from the Commission’ (1981) 6 ELev 454 Pitiyasak S‘Free Movement of Goods Within EU’ (17/12/2005) http://members.tripod.com/asialaw/articles/saravuth.html Steiner J‘Drawing the Line: Uses and Abuses of Article 30 EEC’ (1992) 29 CMLRev 749 Weatherill S‘After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification’ (1996) 33 CML Rev 885 White E‘In Search of the Limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty’ (1989) 26 CMLRev 235 Wils WPJ‘The Search for the Rule in Article 30 EEC: Much Ado About Nothing?’ (1993) 18 ELRev. 475 ARTICLES- ESTABLISHMENT Lonbay J‘Picking over the bones: Rights of Establishment Reviewed’ (1991) 16 ELRev 507 The General Programme (1961) OJ Spec. Ed. Second Series IX O’Keefe D‘Practical Difficulties in the Application of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty’ (1982) 19 CMLRev 35 CASES- GOODS Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263 Case 2/73 Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi (1973) ECR 865 Case 154/85 Commission v Italy (1987) ECR 2717 Case 249/81 Commission v Ireland (1982) ECR 2717 Case 82/77 Openbaar Ministere v Van Tiggele (1978) ECR 25 Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (1979) ECR 649 Case 155/80 Obel (1981) ECR 1993 Cases 60 and 61/84 Cinetheque SA v Federation Natioanle des Cinemas Francais (1986) ECR 2605 Cases C-267 and 268/91- Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard (1993) ECR I-6097 Case 412/93, Societe d’Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v TFI Publicite SA (1995) ECR I-179 Case C-368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und Vertreibs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag (1997) 3 CMLR 1329 CASES- ESTABLISHMENT Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders v Netherlands (1988) ECR 2085 Case 2/74, Reyners v Belgium (1974) ECR 631 Case 221/85, Commission v Belgium (1987) ECR 719 Case 107/83, Ordre des Avocats v Klopp (1984) ECR 2971 Case 292/86, Gullung v Conseil de l’Ordre des Avocats (1988) ECR 111 Case 136/78, Ministere Public v Auer (1979) ECR 437 Case 33/74, Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsverenigning voor de Metaalnijverheif (1974) ECR 1299 Case 279/80 Criminal Proceedings against Webb (1981) ECR 3305 Case 41/74, Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) ECR 1337 Case 67/74, Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Koln (1975) ECR 297 1 Footnotes [1] ECJ [2] Formerly A30 [3] Formerly A52 [4] ‘Free Movement of Goods and Services within the EC’ at 2 [5] Case 22/70 [1971] [6] ‘EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials’ at 582 [7] ‘The Search for the Rule in Article 30 EEC: Much Ado About Nothing? [8] Case 2/73 (1973) [9] ibid [10] Case 154/85 (1987) [11] Case 249/81 (1982) [12] ibid n4 at 588 [13] Case 82/77 (1978) [14] ibid [15] Case 120/78 (1979) [16] ibid n4 at 607 [17] ‘After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification’ [18] Case 155/80 (1981) [19] Cases 60 and 61.94 (1986) [20] Cases C-267 and 268/91 (1993) [21] ‘In Search of the Limits to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty’ [22] ibid n20 [23] ibid [24] Case 412/93 (1995) [25] Case C-368/95 (1997) [26] (1961) [27] Case 221/85 (1987)

Oedipus the King: Does Oedipus Satisfy the Definition of a Good Man? Es

Does Oedipus Satisfy the Definition of a Good Man?      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   As a young man, Oedipus learned of his fate to kill his father and marry his mother.   Oedipus flees to a distant land to escape his terrible fate and inadvertently fulfills the prophecy. Unknowingly, Oedipus kills his father and enters the bed of his mother.   Was Oedipus was a good man who happened to suffer an unfortunate fate, or was he a truly bad person, whose fate was only just?   If we accept the Aristotelian views of good and bad, as expressed in The Good, Oedipus was indeed a good man by saving the city, ruling justly and searching for the truth although his anger could be seen as a flaw.    In his first dealings with the city of Thebes, Oedipus found them under the curse of the Sphinx.   He actually gained his position of King of Thebes by rendering unto the city a great service, namely the salvation of the city from the Sphinx's plague.   Aristotle praised the type of cleverness and practical wisdom Oedipus exhibited in his solution to the riddle as being a component of overall goodness.   If it were not for Oedipus virtuous action in saving Thebes, the citizens would have suffered untold disasters at the merciless hands of the Sphinx.   After proving his worth as a good man and his concern for the citizens of what was seemingly a foreign city, Oedipus was well liked by the people of Thebes.      The people of Thebes liked their ruler, and he in turn ruled over them in a good and just way, trying to help them in their times of need.   Aristotle believed that good in man existed in doing his job well.   A good carpenter was one who worked with his wood and built things as best as possible; a good ruler presided over his people justly.   Oedipus was a go... ...lege Publishers, 1999. Aristotle. " The Good."   Dramatic Theory and Criticism.   Ed. Bernard F. Dukore.   Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1974. Benardete, Seth. "Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus." In Sophocles: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by Thomas Woodard. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Dodds, E. R.   "On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex." Twentieth Century Interpretations of Oedipus Rex: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Michael J. O'Brien.   New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968.   17-29. Harmon, William, and C. Hugh Holman.   A Handbook to Literature. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999. Knox, Bernard M. W.   The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy. Berkeley: U of California Press, 1964. Sophocles.   "Oedipus Rex."   An Introduction to Literature, 11th ed.Eds. Sylvan Barnet, et al.   New York: Longman, 1997.

A Turkish Student and the Board of Regents :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

A Turkish Student and the Board of Regents In what ways can Iowa State University be improved? Responses to this question could vary widely depending on the background of the subject being interviewed. Perhaps an international student might suggest a new club or organization designed to acclimate foreign students to life on campus. However, John Couch, an international student from Turkey, had a much more unique response. Having a wide variety of friends isn't a large concern of his. He is more concerned with how the university is being run and the different boards and comities, in a particular the Board of Regents. John's opinion is that the Board of Regents isn't hearing the concerns of the students. In fact, they appear to be concerned less with the needs of the students and more concerned with the issues of funding. It is very unfortunate that the budget of the university has been cut, but the Board must still attempt to maintain a good relationship with the student body. The quality of education at Iowa State has suffered because of these budget cuts, and the Board has not posted any viable methods to attempt to replenish any of those lost dollars. When asked if he had any suggestions for going about this daunting task, John was unsure. There is definitely a need for more support to aid research, building renovations, and to allow for more teachers, reducing overall class sizes. John's opinion was influenced by his initial experiences at Iowa State. John spent two years in Iowa attending high school before choosing Iowa State. Even though when he graduated his family was still far away in Istanbul, Turkey, John was ready for college. He didn't know if he would fit in or if the other people would make fun of him, he just knew he was going to have fun and learn. John had heard about an organization called a fraternity and thought it sounded interesting. He would eventually join the university's chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon and would meet many new people.

An Essay on Jane Addams

The argument Addams makes that â€Å"educational matters are more democratic in their political than in their social aspect†, I believe she is referring to the long struggle between the teachers and the Chicago School Board. The Chicago School Board was politically corrupt. Many of the teachers and custodial engineers were friends of politicians who secured their positions in exchange for certain kickbacks. The school board maintained control over the school administration for many years. During which they restricted the types of children that were able to attend the public schools and they restricted the amount of freedom and authority the teachers were able to use in their classrooms. On several different occasions the â€Å"Dunne† members of the board attempted to lower the restriction on the teachers side but were warned-off with tales of the politicians and the difficulties previous attempts encountered. Addams' describes the situation between the superintendent and the Teachers' Federation as â€Å"an epitome of the struggle between efficiency and democracy† (171). She clearly understood both standpoints and why they both felt compelled to make their argument, although she does mention that they both â€Å"inevitably exaggerated the difficulties of the situation† (171). As a member of the school board, Addams tried to influence the Federation to make changes that would be in the best interest of the children, but after the legal struggle and following months of constant change, many of the important measure were withdrawn. Although she did have an opportunity to debate these measures in a democratic way, they were dismissed because of (more or less) political reasons. Jane Addams' role for education in an effort to reform the city was to take the disruptive delinquents the public schools rejected and accept them unconditionally into the settlement. Give them the opportunity to learn domestic training and trade teachings. She felt that even people of lesser means were interested in the same topics as the â€Å"well-to-do† people of society. She also thought that if you give a child encouragement and a sense of self-worth combined with an opportunity to become something in society that they would try to become productive. Hull-House offered educational opportunities for anyone who wanted to attend with no political or economic restrictions. Hull-House also offered the opportunity for recreation, such as supervised sports matches, which hundreds of youths seemed to prefer. Jane Addams' makes an important statement that â€Å"The educational activities of a Settlement, as well as its philanthropic, civic, and social undertakings, are but differing manifestations of the attempt to socialize democracy, as is the very existence of the Settlement itself,† (206). That illustrates her idea of education, which I believe is what she wanted for the public school system, but was unable to achieve while she was a member of the board. An Essay on Jane Addams The argument Addams makes that â€Å"educational matters are more democratic in their political than in their social aspect†, I believe she is referring to the long struggle between the teachers and the Chicago School Board. The Chicago School Board was politically corrupt. Many of the teachers and custodial engineers were friends of politicians who secured their positions in exchange for certain kickbacks. The school board maintained control over the school administration for many years. During which they restricted the types of children that were able to attend the public schools and they restricted the amount of freedom and authority the teachers were able to use in their classrooms. On several different occasions the â€Å"Dunne† members of the board attempted to lower the restriction on the teachers side but were warned-off with tales of the politicians and the difficulties previous attempts encountered. Addams' describes the situation between the superintendent and the Teachers' Federation as â€Å"an epitome of the struggle between efficiency and democracy† (171). She clearly understood both standpoints and why they both felt compelled to make their argument, although she does mention that they both â€Å"inevitably exaggerated the difficulties of the situation† (171). As a member of the school board, Addams tried to influence the Federation to make changes that would be in the best interest of the children, but after the legal struggle and following months of constant change, many of the important measure were withdrawn. Although she did have an opportunity to debate these measures in a democratic way, they were dismissed because of (more or less) political reasons. Jane Addams' role for education in an effort to reform the city was to take the disruptive delinquents the public schools rejected and accept them unconditionally into the settlement. Give them the opportunity to learn domestic training and trade teachings. She felt that even people of lesser means were interested in the same topics as the â€Å"well-to-do† people of society. She also thought that if you give a child encouragement and a sense of self-worth combined with an opportunity to become something in society that they would try to become productive. Hull-House offered educational opportunities for anyone who wanted to attend with no political or economic restrictions. Hull-House also offered the opportunity for recreation, such as supervised sports matches, which hundreds of youths seemed to prefer. Jane Addams' makes an important statement that â€Å"The educational activities of a Settlement, as well as its philanthropic, civic, and social undertakings, are but differing manifestations of the attempt to socialize democracy, as is the very existence of the Settlement itself,† (206). That illustrates her idea of education, which I believe is what she wanted for the public school system, but was unable to achieve while she was a member of the board.