Case Study †Catfish Dispute

â€Å"The Vietnamese catfish importers are enjoying the fruits of our work,† This was the main discontent of the domestic (US) catfish industry. Undoubtedly, the catfish farmers had put a lot of effort in improving the aquaculture technology to raise the catfish with better quality; thus, raised the demand of domestic market. At the same time, they had invested about US$50 million in the industry’s marketing. When catfish became the third favorite seafood of the American, leading to a total consumption of 275 million kilograms in 2000, it inevitably attracted people to get in the market.However, based on the fact that the US Congress had approved the U. S. -Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) with a reduction in tariff, it was the right for American importers to start the new business – importing Vietnamese catfish. The agreement was approved by the Congress due to the important reason: the trade benefits. To capture these benefits, they had to undertake the possible risks. Indeed, it was a fair game played by both parties. From the article, it was clear that one of the sources of discontent from domestic farmers was the quality considerations difference between the American-grew and Vietnam-grew catfish.The quality of US catfish is justified by the inspection of 17 federal agencies and can meet the standard of the Catfish Institute of America, whereas the Vietnamese catfish only need to pass the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. This preferential practice should not sustain. The authority should consider standardize the quality requirement of both places’ catfish, for example, make it compulsory for Vietnamese catfish products to undergo the same inspections as the US catfish. Or at least, ask for proof of quality issued by Vietnamese government for all imported catfish.

Media Law Case Studies Essay

1. Whether, as a Member of Parliament (MP), the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament, given by sections 3 and 8 of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance [No. 15 of] 1952 and Article 63(2) of the 1957 Federal Constitution, has been validly limited by the subsequent amendment made to Article 63 with the addition of Clause (4) by the Constitution (Amendment) Act. 1971 (Act A30). 2. Whether the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament is part of the Constitution’s basic structure or a fundamental rule of natural justice, thus rendering any supposed amendment of the Constitution seeking to limit such right is void and of no effect. 3. Whether the demand for closure of Chinese and Tamil schools in the process of implementing the national language can be legally and constitutionally treated as questioning Article 152(1) and thus, bringing into operation section 3(1) (f) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969), despite there not being a demand for the abolition of prohibition of the teaching or learning of such languages. Reasoning 1. While Sections 3 and 8 of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance 1952 as well as Article 63(2) of the Constitution grants an MP freedom of speech in Parliament without being held liable to be prosecuted or questioned in court, the subsequent addition of Clause 4 in Article 63 states that Clause 2 is not applicable to any person who has committed an offence under Article 10(4) or the Sedition Act 1948. Noting that the Accused is charged via the Sedition Act, it is clear that the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament is limited by Clause 4 of Article 63. 2. The Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament is not instrumental in forming the basic structure of the constitution. Thus, it was deemed  unnecessary to decide whether or not any amendments made to said Article will destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. In addition, the Accused’s right of free speech is not part of the fundamental rule of natural justice. Therefore, the amendments made to Article 63 – the addition of Clause (4) limiting MPs’ right of free speech in Parliament – are valid. 3. It was decided that it would be premature and speculative to answer this question at the present stage. The answer is deemed to be bound up with uncertain facts of the case and any proceedings made would be based on assumptions. Counsel was advised to forward the submission prepared to the trial Judge, of whom the case was further referred to. Held The case was accordingly directed to the learned trial Judge for continuation and disposal in accordance with the aforementioned judgment and otherwise according to law. Title and Citation Public Prosecutor v. Param Cumaraswamy [1986] 1 MLJ 518 Facts The accused, Vice President of the Bar Council Param Cumaraswamy, was charged for committing an offence under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969) for uttering seditious words during a press conference at the office of the Selangor and Federal Territory Bar Committee on 24 July 1985. The accused was making an open appeal to the Pardons Board to reconsider the petition of Sim Kie Chon, who was charged under the Internal Security Act for possessing an unlicensed forearm, for the commutation of his death sentence. Issues 1. Whether the words uttered by Cumaraswamy can be considered seditious under Section 3 of the Sedition Act. 2. Whether the statement made by Cumaraswamy incited feelings of ill-will and hostility between the different classes of the Malaysian population under Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act. 3. Whether the statement made by Cumaraswamy incited hatred or contempt or excited disaffection against the Authority under Section 3(1)(a). Reasoning 1. Uttered words can only be considered seditious if they achieve one or more of the instruments specified in Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act. Section 3(1)(d) of the Sedition Act 1948 states that for uttered words to be considered seditious, it must be capable of raising discontent or disaffection amongst the people of Malaysia. The press statement was an open appeal to the Pardons Board urging them to exercise their powers uniformly so that the people would not be made to feel that the Board was discriminatory. It was agreed by the Court that the words which were used were unlikely to create discontent or disaffection neither among the people nor against the Authority i.e. Yang di-Pertuan Agong, any other Rulers of State and the government. 2. Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act defines an act with seditious tendency that is capable of promotin feeling of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Malaysia. In one part of the press statement, Cumaraswamy pointed out to the Pardons Board that the people should not be made to feel that the Board was discriminating between â€Å"the poor, the meek and the unfortunate† and â€Å"the rich, the powerful and the influential†. The court agreed that instead of trying to promote ill-will and hostility between the different classes of the population, Cumaraswamy was in fact urging the Board not to create the feeling or impression among the population that the Board was discriminating between the different classes. 3. Section 3(1)(a) stated that a ‘seditious tendency’ is a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government. It should be noted that Cumaraswamy’s appeal was directed at the Pardons Board and not at the Ruler i.e. the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Hence, it is clear that the statement did not carry the tendency to bring upon hatred of disaffection against the Ruler. Held Mr. Cumaraswamy was found not guilty of sedition. He was subsequently acquitted and discharged. Title and Citation Public Prosecutor v. Pung Chen Choon [1994] 1 MLJ 566 Facts The accused, Pung Chen Choon, editor of newspaper The Borneo Mail, was charged of maliciously publishing false news in The Borneo Mail dated 16 July 1990, stating that Benjamin Basintrol, a priest, had been arrested under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA), whereas another priest was on the run from the police and several others were understood to be on the ‘wanted’ list. He was charged with an offence under Section 8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA). He was prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court in Kota Kinabalu. A few issues were raised, leading to the case being forwarded to the High Court and subsequently, to the Supreme Court. Issues The following issues of law were presented to the Supreme Court for determination: 1. Whether Section 8A(1) of PPPA, when read with Section 8A(2), restricts the right to freedom of speech and expression granted by Article 10(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. If so, whether the restriction imposed is one permitted by or under Article 10(2)(a) of the Constitution. 3. Whether Section 8A(1) of PPPA, read with Section 8A(2), is consistent with Article 10(1)(a) and (2)(a) of the Constitution and therefore, valid. 4. Whether Section 8A(2) of PPPA, by presuming that false news by itself is malicious, amounts to pre-censorship and therefore, disregards Article 10(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution. Reasoning 1. The Malaysian Constitution, unlike the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, does not directly addresses freedom of press. However, judicial opinion in India regarding Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, which grants all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, has established that freedom of press is included within its domain. In regards to that, it is clear that Section 8A(1) of the PPPA does restrict the right to freedom of speech and expression granted by Article 10(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2 & 3. Although not all false news, even if maliciously published, falls within the stated restrictions in Article 10(2)(a), it is possible that the malicious publication of false news could incite acts which jeopardize the internal security of the country, undermine Malaysia’s friendly relations with other countries, lead to disturbance of public  order, and incite the commission of offences. Hence, it can be said that Section 8A of PPPA falls within the orbit of permitted restrictions in Article 10(2)(a) of the Constitution and is constitutionally valid. 4. Section 8A(2) of PPPA is merely a statutory presumption which operates at the trial stage, arising only if the prosecution are able to prove – when prosecuting the accused in court – that the news published is false. Section 8A(2) is, in no way, equated with pre-censorship, which can only take place before publication. Moreover, Section 8A(2) does not restrict freedom of press either directly or indirectly. Hence, the answer to Question 4 is ‘no’. Held The case was forwarded to the magistrate to proceed with the hearing, taking into account the answers to the questions presented, to determine whether the offence charged has been ascertained by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. References Mark Koding v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 2 MLJ 120 Public Prosecutor v. Param Cumaraswamy [1986] 1 MLJ 512 Public Prosecutor v. Param Cumaraswamy (No. 2) [1986] 1 MLJ 518 Public Prosecutor v. Pung Chen Choon [1994] 1 MLJ 566

Analysis of American History X Essay

In this assignment, I was challenged to find important historical and cultural connections of the film American History X and analyze the important rhetorical of my findings. I went about choosing American History X by placing a poll on Facebook listing out the films that I had any slight interest in considering for this assignment and American History X won by a landslide. I was actually somewhat disappointed, because I wanted to do The X-Files, but I chose to stick to my promise and go with whatever text won. I watched American History X some years after its release in 1998. Although, I know I must have watched it sometime after I got out of high school because at the time of its release I was 12 years old and with the amount of violence in that film I know I did not watch it with my parents. From the little memory I had of the film from the first time, I could only recall that American History X had a lot to do with white supremacy and racism, that Edward Norton played the lead ro le and that the kid who played in the first Terminator was his brother and was all grown up. I hesitated watching the film again for quite sometime because I knew I would need to dedicate a solid two hours of mental energy towards it. One could argue that I was merely just procrastinating; however, I benefitted from having done so because future class discussions provided a foundation for how I could study the film. After reading about and discussing in class the topic of approaching a text organically, I decided to implement that mentality and view the film as objectively as non-object individual can. It is difficult to say whether it was that approach that ultimately led to my findings in the film, or if I would have discovered them anyway since it was my second time viewing the film. Everyone can appreciate that after the second and third time of watching any film you begin to pick up on things you missed the first time. In either case, I found the movie to be incredibly eye opening and I enjoyed having to research the history surrounding the film and, ultimately, the state of the nation during what was my childhood. American History X is a film that depicts a traditional white family in the mid 1990s, but spot lights the two brothers’ journeys into maturity. The movie focuses on the older brother Derek, played by Edward Norton, and how Derek’s Neo-Nazi associations in his life greatly influence his younger brother Danny, played by Edward Furlong. Fueled by rage of his father’s death, the film opens with a scene of Derek brutally killing three young black men who were attempting to steal his father’s truck. Derek is then sent to prison for 3 years during which time his younger brother Danny begins to follow in Derek’s footsteps with the Neo-Nazi organization. The movie flips between black-and-white scenes of the past and color scenes of the present. The black-and-white flashbacks attempt to illuminate Danny’s perception of Derek’s past life while intermittently presenting how Derek overcame is his own hatred. The color scenes portray the present and highlight the effects the hatred has had on the entire family. Overall, the movie critiques on not only the effects of urban racism and bigotry, but a lso the how minds of young people are so impressionable. The film even succeeds in creating a sense of sympathy for characters that are typically hated, Neo-Nazi racist skinheads, and paints them not as foolish, uneducated racist bigots, but instead as misguided intelligent human beings. On the surface the film discusses racism, violence, and bigotry, but upon closer examination I found a deeper message within the film. Watching it a second time, I realized that this film is really emphasizing the lack of critical thinking skills in young people, particularly in teenagers and young adults and how impressionable their minds are. Then, upon further research related to those very topics it touches on in the film, I discovered that the entire movie itself actually harbors an obscure form of racism that was reflected in many movies throughout the 1990s. Needless to say, even in today’s society we deal with these same issues of racism and intolerance for other people’s beliefs. However, within the most recent years it has evolved to focus more on the gay, lesbian and transgender community. History certainly can be seen as repeating itself as many of the arguments that gays and lesbians make regarding their civil rights and discrimination almost mirror the same arguments made back in the 1960s during the civil right movement. Reverend Dr. Phil Snider made this connection so blatantly clear in his speech that went viral on YouTube that he gave before the Springfield City Council of Missouri just a few weeks ago. In his speech, Dr. Snider cleverly took quotes directly from speeches given by white preachers in favor of racial segregation in the 1950 and 1960s and merely substituted select words and inserted ‘gays and lesbians’ (â€Å"Preacher Phil Snider Gives Interesting Gay Rights Speech†). I think the twist of his speech highlights the main issues regarding any form of racism and discrimination and they most certainly could be applied to the issues of racism that America faced in the 1990s. The 1990s was saturated with debates over, court cases involving and numerous media outlets centering on the issues of racism and affirmative action. In May of 1992, Newsweek printed an article entitled â€Å"The Crossroads of Shattered Dreams† that summarized the conflicts of racism in the early 90s stating, â€Å"white[s] charge that affirmative action is unfair†¦blacks respond that it was unfair for them to be starved of opportunities by 300 years of slavery and discrimination.† That same year, the verdict of Rodney King’s case outraged the black community and sparked riots lasting six days with over 2,000 people injured and 55 people killed (â€Å"Riots Erupt in Los Angeles†). In March of 1996, the three white law school candidates charged that they were unfairly discriminated against and rejected for entrance into the school for less qualified minorities in the famous case Hopwood v. Texas Law School (â€Å"Hopwood v. University Texas Law School †). Just prior to the release of American History X in 1998, California enacted Proposition 209, which amended the state’s constitution to ban preferential treatment of any persons based on race or gender in public sector education, employment, and contracting (Parker). All of these enormously impactful events and numerous others shaped much of the discrimination that occurred in the 1990s. In fact, sociological research confirms â€Å"discrimination is more often the result of organizational practices that have unintentional effects† or predispositions â€Å"linked to social stereotypes and does not so much stem from individual prejudices† (Tomaskovic-Devey). Nevertheless, the culmination of these types of incidents led to a demand for Hollywood to â€Å"headline positive characters of color† (Hughey 549). Producers and directors felt pressure to make-up for their own history of racist filmmaking and, consequently, this also gave rise to the development of a veiled type of racism within films referred to by Hughey himself as the â€Å"cinethetic racism†(550). Cinethetic racism in the 1990s was typically found in films that have a black character whose purpose in the film is to support the white protagonist. Typically this black character, coined the â€Å"magical Negro† by Hughey, was portrayed as the voice of reason, or having some other type wisdom, within the film and who selflessly helps the white character achieve his goals. â€Å"These films rest on friendly, helpful, bend-over-backwards black characters that do not seek to change their own impoverished status, but instead exhibit a primordial, hard-wired desire to use their magical power to correct the wrongs in a white world† (Hughey 556). The concept expressed in this quote is clearly evident in the film American History X during the many scenes of Derek in prison working in the laundry room with Lamont, a friendly black prisoner who attempts to befriend him. Eventually Derek is able let down his guard and the future interactions between them usually consist of Lamo nt humorously explaining how things work within the prison. There is one scene, however, that does somewhat contradict this concept of a â€Å"magical Negro† and, instead, causes Derek to experience a form of guilt. This contradiction is depicted in the scene of Lamont and Derek working in the laundry room and Derek very genuinely asks Lamont why he is in prison. Lamont explains how he was sentenced for assault on a police officer because he accidently dropped a TV on the officer’s foot that he was trying to steal. Derek initially resists and jokingly asks Lamont to tell the truth, but Lamont insists that he did not assault the police officer and only dropped the TV on the officer’s foot. This is the pivotal moment within the movie that shows Derek’s guilt and sympathy for the first time towards a black person. I think this is the most important scene throughout the entire film because it gives the audience exactly what they want: they want to see Derek experience this epiphany and for him to recognize how he has perpetuated discrimination against black people. But it does not take very long for the film to revert right back into the traditional cinethetic racist ways. In Derek’s last interaction with Lamont, the audience learns that during Derek’s stay within prison Lamont was protecting him from further beatings and rape after Derek chose to no longer affiliate with the Neo-Nazis within the prison. That scene ultimately preserves the concept of the â€Å"magical Negro† and that black people have this underlying desire to serve to the needs of white people. I liken this idea of cinethetic racism to what actors refer to the subtext of a script. Normally, the subtext refers to the underlying motives of a particular character, but this concept of cinethetic racism is like the â€Å"subtext† of an entire film. â€Å"Of greatest critical concern is how [magical Negro] films advantageously shore up white supremacist and normative orders while ostensibly posturing as an irreverent challenge to them† (Hughey 553). On the surface it appears to be a film that tries to defeat racism, but ironically there are hidden agendas that completely go against the moral of this story. Just as magical Negros are a disguised form of racism found in American films in the 1990s, there were also disguised forms of racism going on politically throughout the nation, more specifically in California. During the 1990s, racism and civil rights disputes were approaching the heights they reached in the civil rights era of the 1960s. However, after many decades of affirmative action policies attempting to right the wrongs minorities faced and with California experiencing an economic downturn, many whites became less tolerant of minorities receiving preferential treatment through affirmative action programs (Alvarez). Now the whites are claiming they were discriminated against in a form of â€Å"reverse discrimination.† What I find so interesting about the idea of â€Å"reverse discrimination† is that it implies that discrimination only naturally goes in one direction: whites against minorities. And, furthermore, that there will always be a certain level of racism, as if to suggest that there is a threshold for which it is acceptable, but also that it is the responsibility of the majority, white people, to keep it in check. Yet the moment any form of racism or discrimination is felt against whites, it is completely intolerable and demands political action. It was the supporters of Proposition 209 that argued that current affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants because of their race, and that Proposition 209 would â€Å"return [us] to the fundamentals of our democracy,† as summarized in an article capturing the main arguments of Proposition 209 entitled â€Å"Prohibition Against Discrimination.† With in the same article it preached, â€Å"let us not perpetuate the myth that ‘minorities’ and women cannot compete without special preferences†¦vote for fairness not favoritism.† The fairness of Proposition 209 has been hotly debatably ever since it was enacted in 1997, but I think the dinner scene with Derek and his father in American History X most succinctly sums up the mindset of the many supporters of Proposition 209. The scene opens with a dinner table conversation between Derek and his father about the material he is learning for his English class. His father than expresses his distaste for such material with the following monologue: â€Å"All this stuff about making everything equal†¦ it’s not as easy as it looks†¦you gotta trade in great books for black books now? You gotta question these things Derek. We are not just talking about books here, we’re talking about my job. I got two blacks guys on my squad now that got their jobs over a couple of white guys who actually scored higher on the test. Does that make sense? They got their job because they were black not because they were the best? America’s about if you do your best you get the job†¦not this affirmative blacktion crap†¦.it’s nigger bullshit.† This dinner scene perfectly exemplifies the concept that 1) the moment whites feel they are being discriminated they instantly raise the red flag and 2) that â€Å"discrimination is more often the result of organizational practices that have unintentional effects [†¦] and does not so much stem from individual prejudices,† as I stated earlier. Another aspect that I find so interesting about American History X was how writer David McKenna was able to pull directly from real life situations to add dialogue into this screenplay. McKenna and Edward Norton actually rewrote a portion of the script quoting from Governor Pete Wilson’s speech advocating Proposition 209 in 1995 (Goldstein). More importantly, it was used in a scene where Derek is trying to energize a group of young skin heads before they vandalize a grocery store owned by minorities. I find it so ironic that the character of a racist Neo-Nazi was reciting actual words from a speech promoting the removal of affirmative actions polices that were, allegedly, intended to reduce discrimination and increase equality. When I discovered this tidbit of information I was completely blown away. I had no idea how closely this movie reflected real problems going on in society in the 1990s. McKenna’s use of Pete Wilson’s speech is clearly an example of art ref lecting reality, but Pete Wilson’s speech was not the only source from reality in which McKenna got his inspiration. McKenna grew up in Southern California, where the film story takes place, and personally witnessed bigotry and racism (Bruce). From his encounters and extensive research, McKenna decided that the point he tried â€Å"to make in the script is that a person is not born a racist†¦[McKenna] wanted an accurate portrayal of how good kids from good families can get so terribly lost† (Bruce). Personally, I think McKenna succeeded in having that be the main message of the film: the impressionability of a young mind and that all behaviors are learned. The film simultaneously follows Derek’s upbringing and how he becomes involved in the Neo-Nazi organization and how his involvement with that group greatly influenced his younger brother Danny. The dinner scene I detailed above is the key scene from McKenna’s screenplay that supports the idea that racism is a learned behavior stemmed from outside organizational practices. However, despite how well received the movie was and the numerous nominations Edward Norton received for his performance, that is not the original message the director intended. Tony Kaye was the director of American History X and, ironically, he also turned out to be a major competing persuasive force throughout the entire film making process. Kaye battled with directors, producers, writer David McKenna and Edward Norton himself claiming that New Line Cinema never allowed him to create his vision of the film going as far as to take out full page ads in trade magazines bashing the film and even requested to have his name removed from the film entirely and replaced with the pseudonym â€Å"Humpy Dumpty† (Goldstein). In a statement made shortly after the film’s release, Kaye contended that Edward Norton edited a majority of the film in order to increase his screen time in the film and that the producers did not allow Kaye an â€Å"opportunity to present a black voice to provide depth and balance to the film† and furthered that he wanted the film to be an â€Å"homage to free speech and responsibility† (Leinberger). I think the main reason why Kaye’s original vision never made it to the film was because it clashed so much with McKenna’s original message. McKenna wrote the film based off of his personal experience witnessing acts of racisms in Southern California in throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s. Whereas, Kaye is not only much older than McKenna, but grew up in United Kingdom and had only been living in the United states for a few years before he got involved in the film at all, and, therefore, did not quite have the same outlook for the script (Topel). It should also be noted that this was Kaye’s first feature film and his previous directing experience came from extensive work with TV commercials and music videos (Goldstein). And while McKenna himself may not have been directly involved during the filming process, as most writers are not, I think Edward Norton and the producers all believed in and followed McKenna’s vision because of how much it related to the struggles that America was facing at that time. This is not to suggest that Kaye’s vision for the film was wrong, but that producers have to consider what the audience wants and expects to see. From studying American History X, I have learned how racism evolved in a very peculiar fashion. As racism, specifically towards black people, became less and less accepted by whites over the last 150 years, certain segments of society seemed to find ways to continue a small, but undeniable level of racism since it was no longer socially acceptable among the general population to outwardly express it with for instance, lynching. Racism and discrimination has certainly come a long way over the last sixty years, but it has definitely not been eradicated. In fact, some would argue that now whites are beginning to experience a type of â€Å"reverse discrimination† due unforeseen effects from affirmative action programs. In regards to American films however, one would have to sit down personally with directors and producers of 1990s films to determine if they intentionally created these magical Negro characters in order to perpetuate racism. Aside from the fact that it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever openly admit to that, I personally think that cinethetic racism and the magical Negro were just an unintended consequence of a fad that was going on throughout Hollywood at the time, the fad being to have black people portray certain qualities of wisdom and â€Å"magical powers† within films. In either case, it is very curious that a movie such as America History X meets the qualifications for cinethetic racism. In my opinion, for a film that was intended to enlighten the audience of the problem of racism in America, yet ultimately perpetuated a veiled version of it, could no more flawlessly fit into this concept of cinethetic racism. Also, the argument of whether or not reality reflects art or if art reflects reality is just as frustrating to argue as whether the chicken or the egg came first. But in the case for this film, I would contend that American History X, art, is reflecting reality. In fact, the notion behind cinethetic racism and the magical Negro tie in so neatly with the arguments for Proposition 209 and Gov. Pete Wilson’s speech that it is just uncanny. With a closer look into both, one can see that each share their own masked form of racism veiled as though whites are helping minorities. Art was imitating the subversive racism that was occurring in r eality. As an actor myself, I think it is unfortunate for director Tony Kaye that, for whatever reason, he was not able to get his original vision of the film produced. I think because of the numerous racially historical events that were occurring the 1990s that producing a movie which centered on the freedom of speech around racism as Kaye originally intended, was the last thing any audience wanted to watch in a theatre. All in all, I think film did a fabulous job highlighting historical events and attitudes going on throughout society during the 1990s, despite the fact that the film may be perpetuating racism at a subversive level. Works Cited American History X. Dir. Tony Kaye. Perf. Edward Norton and Edward Furlong. New Line Cinemas, 1998. Film. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Lisa G. Bedolla. â€Å"The Revolution Against Affirmative Action in California: Racism, Economics, and Proposition 209.† State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4.1 (2004): 1-17. Sage Publications, Inc. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. Bruce, David. â€Å"Racism in America=Hating Others.† American History X: A Hollywood Jesus Film Review. HollywoodJesus.com, n. d. Web. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Goldstein, Patrick. â€Å"Courting Trouble.† Edward Norton Information Page. N.p., 13 1998. Web. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . â€Å"Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School†. Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012 . Hughey, Matthew W. â€Å"White Redemption and Black Stereotypes in â€Å"Magical Negro† Films.† Social Problems 56.3 (2009): 543-77. www.jstor.org. University of California Press, 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Leinberger, Gisela. â€Å"Film Director Tony Kaye Makes Statement at Berlin’s Brandenberg Gate; Director of ‘American History X’ Speaks to Film’s Issues.† PR News Wire. N.p., n. d. Web. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Parker, Beth H. â€Å"The Impact of Proposition 209 on Education, Employment and Contracting.† ERA: Prop 209 Impact. Equal Rights Advocates, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. . Preacher Phil Snider Gives Interesting Gay Rights Speech. Perf. Rev. Dr. Phil Snider. Www.YouTube.com. YouTube, 13 Aug. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . â€Å"Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment..† California’s 1996 General Election Web Site! . N.p., n. d. Web. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . â€Å"Riots erupt in Los Angeles.† 2012. The History Channel website. Oct 21 2012 . Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald, and Patricia Warren. â€Å"Explaining and Eliminating Racial Profiling.† Contexts. American Sociological Association, 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Topel, Fred. â€Å"Interview with Lake of Fire Filmmaker Tony Kaye.† About.com Oct 21 2012. Whitaker, Mark. â€Å"A Crisis Of Shattered Dreams.† Newsweek. 5 1991: 1. Web. 19 Oct. 2012..

Explain why the Environment is such a discursive subject

It is a fact that the planets weather is becoming more erratic, and ultimately warmer. The causes of the changes to our weather system are undeniable, but the real debate is if they are entirely man made. Evidence of carbon emissions increasing is available, but there is no â€Å"smoking gun† that categorically proves that the two are linked (sceptical science website – accessed 20/04/11). Until this can be proved beyond doubt one way or the other, people will disagree on mans impact on the earth. Since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century there has been a growing concern on the impact of economic development in nature (Moran, 2005, p338). Different individuals and different political parties will have differing views on the impact and relevance of environmental issues in the modern political world. Despite the awareness of the issue, environmental issues would not enter mainstream politics until the 1960's. Previously there was little thought given to the natural resources consumed by man, but in the modern world their finite nature has been realised (Bentley, 2006, p137). By the late 1980's all mainstream political parties would have adopted and developed their own environmental agendas (ibid, p138). Pressure groups such as Greenpeace, the CND, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund were campaigning in the UK and around the world during the 70's and 80's in order to bring the environmental agenda to the political forefront. But it was not just pressure groups bringing environmentalism to the political landscape, but also a whole new political party. The Green party was started in 1985 with the aim of moving politics away from what it felt was the continued pursuit of economic growth and focusing more on clean sustainable living (Moran, 2005, p338). The Green party has continued to rise since it's inception. The party currently has 109 elected local councillors, 2 European MP's and in the May 2010 election gained their first seat in the Westminster when party leader Caroline Lucas won Brighton and Hove (Green Party Website – accessed 20/04/2011). With the Green parties growing influence in British Politics, the real threat of global warming, a globalized economy and the existence of more and more pressure groups, we can be assured that the environmental agenda will remain in British Politics for many years to come. There are many examples of environmental campaigns that have already been and gone and the results of which can still be seen today. In 1982 and Englishman named Des Wilson began a campaign called CLEAR, with the aim of reducing the impact of lead pollution from petrol. Lead pollution was known to have serious impact on the health of young children, as well as the environment as a whole. Fortunately for the members of CLEAR, the campaign had already begun to reduce lead pollution in the UK. These campaigns had support in some very influential places. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had already stated its desires for lead free petrol, and the German government had been appealing to the rest of Europe over the danger to German and other European forests. A European Union directive shortly followed and the majority of Western states installed lead-free petrol in their petrol stations by the end of 1983 (Leach, 2006, p423). In 1972 International think tank â€Å"the club of Rome† published a book called â€Å"The Limits of Growth†, and warned that the existing economic growth was putting a serious strain on Earths natural resources and warned of an impending catastrophe for mankind. Awareness of environmental issues was growing in Britain too, with the National Trust, the Council for Protection of Rural England and the RSPB some of the long standing organisation's joining the environmental campaign. Also, newer groups such as Transport 2000 and the Centre for Alternative Technology sprung up and joined many UK affected and/or based campaigns (Leach, 2005, p424). There is little doubt that the campaigns of these pressure groups helped to bring the environmental agenda to the forefront of British Politics. Environmental issues will affect all other policy areas of political parties and governments in a way that few other issues can. As stated previously with the CLEAR campaign, the effect of placing lead free petrol on the petrol station forecourt would of been non-existent had the lead-free petrol been twice the price of leaded fuel. As such, the British government encouraged the switch by placing reduced taxes on unleaded petrol, so the impact of making the environmentally conscious policy affected taxation in 1983 (ibid, p423). Any new development of roads, rail track or real estate will need to go through certain environmental checks prior to any planning permission being granted. An excellent example from recent times of environmental issues affecting a political decision relates to the planning permissions of the new Olympic Games site in Stratford. As part of the process for obtaining planning permission, the Olympic Delivery Authority produced a 40 page Environment statement on how they planned to maintain the sites wildlife before, during and after the Olympic Games (London 2012 website – accessed 20/04/11). Rather then possibly serving as a hindrance to the project, the environmental impact and sustainability became a key component of what the project wished to achieve. This is clears evidence that environmental issues are so ingrained in political thought that they are no longer considered as an after thought. This is, in my opinion, a clear indication of how the early environmental lobbyists were successful in their pursuit to bring environmentalism to the mainstream political agenda. International agreements on environmental issues will also affect the thinking of a governing political organisation. In 1997 186 states agreed on limits to their carbon emissions. The aim was to reduce the carbon emissions of signed countries to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Although initially successful (the 2002 targets set out by the agreement were met) the problems with the Kyoto began when the US withdrew from the agreement in 2001. Although President Clinton had agreed to the treaty in '97, there were serious issues getting it through the senate, and in 2001 President Bush pulled the US out of Kyoto declaring that it would gravely damage the US economy. The principal of the agreement on Kyoto would see states given a set quota of emissions each year, and these limits they would be allowed to trade off against one another. This would see high emission nations such as the US buy unused credits off of less polluting countries such as The Netherlands. Nations could also earn extra credits by getting involved in environmental conservation works in their own country or in a developing nation (BBC website accessed 19/04/2011). Kyoto would ultimately fail because the principal of trading emissions quotas would be unsustainable, and no significant reductions in emissions were achieved though the life of the treaty. The last attempt to broker an agreement in the international community was in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. As John Vidal wrote in the Guardian â€Å"The so-called Copenhagen accord â€Å"recognises† the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal†. After the conference, G77 executive director Lumumba Di-Aping described the deal as having â€Å"the lowest level of ambition you can get†, and John Sauven of Greenpeace UK described Copenhagen as a â€Å"crime scene† (Guardian Website, accessed 19/04/11). The simple truth is that environmental issues are here to stay. The early work of environmental pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace has clearly had an effect on modern political thought. Every political party will have an environmental policy outlined in its pre-election manifesto as well as in the policy section of its website. As we saw with the Olympic Stadium, the environmental impact of the construction process and post games legacy was a major factor when the whole project was outlined. Environmentalism in politics is here to stay. Major international agreements may fail like Kyoto, or fail to even appear as was the case with Copenhagen, but the pressure groups are growing is strength and influence, and any move by the political system to remove environmentalism will be met with strong opposition and serious repercussions.

The True Story of Joan/John

There is a fine line between sex and gender. In fact, most probably do not even know that there is even difference between the two! People just assume a boy should act like a boy and a girl should act like a girl. Society forces us to think and behave that way. If you think about it when a baby girl is born everything is pink, but not all girls love the color pink. Society shapes the role of each child based on its biological sex. What happens if you do not behave like your sex is supposed to behave? In the article, â€Å"The True Story of Joan/John,† Joan does not act like the female that her surrounding pushed on her to be.This article tells the story of a man who goes through a long journey of finding himself. John was born male, and then through complications was told he was a female and now he indentifies himself as a male. I cannot comprehend how traumatic these gender and sex changes were on his life. In this one situation it shows how John, who was always told he was a girl, still behaved a like a male because in reality at birth he was. This example makes me think that society plays a part in deciding your gender and who you are. However, John was pushed to behave like a girl. He never did, he wanted to play with the stereotypical â€Å"boy† toys like trucks.Is it possible that your biological sex can determine your gender? Social constructionist is not totally correct or accurate. There are girls that are tomboys and boys that gay or just super feminine. Society cannot always push people in the route that they want them in. A majority of times when an individual, like John, does not conform to society they are ridiculed. Harassment can have many effects and sometimes the effect is not to conform them but it can be as serious as suicide. Society interrupts a child’s growth and individuality. In the case of Joan / John, he was living a â€Å"double life†.He knew at a very young age that something was wrong. He didn’t l ike being put in dresses or playing with dolls. â€Å"Joan† just wasn’t performing like other females her age and just about everyone was noticing that. Social constructionism is pushing John to behave differently than how he wants to behave. In a way society was disturbing his normal growth as a child by changing who he thought he was, his gender identity. In the end, he knew he was a male, which relates back to gender essentialism. Dr. Money definitely took advantage of John’s parents by giving them false knowledge.John’s parents were so uninformed about everything that was going on with John’s situation. Dr. Money was a very strict social constructionist that believed if he told John he was a female then he would be a female. How could Dr. Money, a doctor, think that telling a child that it is a specific sex and that it would grow up believing and acting like that sex? Things just don’t work like that. I think genes and your sex have a bi g part in identifying your gender. Each situation for each child is so incredibly different I find it too extraordinary that society and environment could change the identity of a person.I do not think that gender essentialism or social constructionism is the way, but a balance in between the two. Gender essentialism and social constructionism challenge each other. The two are the extremes of reality. A balance between the two is how people live each and every day. In the situation of John, his life shows a journey through all three ways, gender essentialism, social constructionism and reality. Dr. Money believed in social constructionism, but while John was told he was a female he showed his belief in gender essentialism. He ignored people because he â€Å"knew† something was not right and that he should be a male.Now he lives his life as a male but in what I call â€Å"reality†. He listens to society in some ways but he focuses on being a father and that to him is wh at a male is, a father. The article challenges the two opposing beliefs because no one knows the correct answer. Each person and situation is different. Maybe for some the theory of gender essentialism will push them to be who they truly are, while for others it may be society, the theories of social constructionism. For the rest it is reality, a combination of the two. Works Cited Colapinto, John. â€Å"â€Å"The True Story of Joan/John†. † Rolling Stone 11 Dec. 1997: 54-97. Print.

Relationship between christmas and religion Essay

Relationship between christmas and religion - Essay Example which were not directly related to Christianity, but were inspired from the former popular religion Pagan are Christmas tree, decoration on it and around it, gathering around it, stuffing stockings with goodies and hanging them on the top of fireplaces. Nevertheless, in the past exchange of presents and opening them on the day of Christmas was also not a part of Christmas tradition, but was supposed to be linked with New Year celebrations. In the contemporary world this occasion is not only associated to Christian faith only, but non-believers also celebrate it due to its global popularity, adaptability by the Western society, business and media publicity and promotion and eventually its acceptability by all faith holders. Now Christmas is a time of national holidays, time to bond with families, eat turkey, shop endlessly and exchange of gifts. It’s a time for which business entrepreneurs plan carefully and media gives full coverage to it worldwide. It gives a chance to job-tied people to relax and mingle with family and friends. Hence, Christmas holidays are celebrated around the globe with or without relating it to the Christian

Unit IV Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Unit IV - Essay Example Three years’ statements are provided for the company. In addition, statements can also be viewed on quarterly basis. This is an interesting link and shows prices for IBM stocks since December 31, 1965 to date. The information that is provided include open and close prices for the day, highest and lowest prices and total volume of transactions for the day. One can search the range of dates for which the historical stock prices are to be viewed and the system provides these readily. This link shows the industry in which the company operates. For IBM, the industry is â€Å"Diversified Computer Systems† in the â€Å"Technology† sector. It also gives a brief comparison of the company with the industry changes in stock prices. This page provides comprehensive information about IBM. This includes the full business address of the company, its website, the stock exchanges where the company is listed, number of employees (366,486 for IBM) and a brief summary of IBM together with a description of key executives and their pay package. The research reports provide various analysis of the company by different research agencies like Standard and Poor’s, Plunkett, Reuters etc. The reports are provided for existing and potential shareholders to gain an insight into company’s strategies, operations and market standings. The P/E ratio for IBM is 16.92 (as on June 28, 2007). The stock price depends upon factors like last dividend paid, dividend growth ratio and the interest rate in the market. The actual figure, though, might differ from the calculated one because other non-financial factors like market conditions, speculation, and company’s image are also critical in the actual stock price. 2. Yes. Government needs to intervene into the operations of companies from the viewpoint of a regulator. This is because these listed companies use common people’s money to develop their systems and procedures and hence, have