Epiphenomenalism a retrospective analysis Essay

Epiphenomenalism a retrospective analysis - Essay Example It suggests that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but in turn, the mental event has no effects upon the physical events. Epiphenomenalists argue that behaviour is a result of muscular activity resultant from neural impulses and that these impulses are triggered by other impulses that are inputs from the senses. Thus the mind has no role to play in human behavior. Huxley himself compared the mental events to the steam horns that are fitted on a steam locomotive. He said that they play no vital role on the functioning of the steam engine. Mental phenomena according to him cannot create anymore impact on the physical plain anymore than a shadow can create impacts on the footsteps of the person. All mental events can be broadly divided in to two categories according to their nature. The first one comprises of phenomenal experiences such as pain, qualia after images and tastes etc. The second kind of mental events comprises of occurent propositional attitudes such as beliefs and desires. Arguments on epiphenomenalism can concern both types of mental events and one cannot give solid evidence to its sanctity on both levels. The two types of mental events can be connected provided we assume that we have our qualia. Thus if we assume that pains have no physical effects, we could infer that (i) pains do not cause the belief that we are in pain and (ii) beliefs that we are in pain is epiphenomenal. Since if we believe that we are in pain and it leads us to some response (even indirectly) having an effect on the physical plane, then we would have to affirm that the whole proposition of epiphenomena is nothing but absurd because according to the theory, the feeling that we are in pain should have no consequence to events in our physical world. The logic though lies in the premise that events in the physical world have sufficient causes in the physical world and if men tal events were real and separate from physical events, then it would require a violation of physical law. The interactionist model proposed that the pineal gland undergoes changes according to mental events and brings about physical changes. But epiphenomena denies the involvement of any mental events and hence such physical changes of the pineal gland should have to be explained by events in the physical plane. It explicitly states that there will be no such change in the gland until a physical force would cause it to change. This is where epiphenomena disappoint us once more. Its rigidity and lack of accommodative capacity for new findings leave us with no option, but to sideline it and look for a better theory. Other arguments that are contrary to the standing of epiphenomena include the theory of natural selection. For that theory to stand, it should explain the development of consciousness. But a property by which a selection can occur in a species is relevant only when particular thoughts have effects upon specific behavior patterns. Therefore it is imperative that the conscious and the qualia should alter the course of behaviour in the physical world - quite contrary to what epiphenomenalism states. We all know that natural selection is a reality whether we like it or not and hence as a consequence epiphenomenalism fails to stand ground. It also contradicts the existence of other minds. But we do know that

Should college athletes be paid Essay Example for Free

Should college athletes be paid Essay Should College Athletes be Paid? Maybe it was the annual spectacle of March Madness and the fact that UCONN came out of nowhere as an underdog to win their 3rd national NCAA men’s basketball title. Maybe it was the excitement of watching the UCONN football team playing in its first ever BCS Bowl against Oklahoma last year. Whatever he reason, the media and sports critics always ignite a fresh debate over the merits of paying college athletes for their services to the schools. Over the past few months, PBS, ESPN and HBO each aired major specials and documentaries on the relative injustices or justice – deepening our your view of the current college Division 1 (D1) system that allows amateur players to generate billions (that is correct, billions) in revenue each year for their respective schools and the NCAA organization, but prohibits them from receiving a dime of it or any compensation that might be offered from other sources deemed private or public. Coaches can sign multimillion-dollar contracts, endorse products, and rake in lucrative speaking fees. Is this fair? Are we being ethical and righteousness treating young and innocent individuals in this matter? Should we as a society allow these individuals to be taken advantaged in this matter? These are just a few questions many people ask, and the answers are not clear-cut as one might think. To pay or not to pay? The question everyone asks every year since the explosion of D1 College sports over the past couple of decades. The debate over the pros and cons in paying college athletes won’t end until changes are made or someone does something about the current system. My goal throughout this paper will be to present and clarify some of these arguments and why someone could make changes amendable to everyone involved. I will focus my arguments and debate on three major issues. (1) Should we pay students athletes and how much should they be paid? (2) How would they get paid and the challenges in managing this process, can the schools afford it? (3) And finally, what ethical issues, if any, would this pose to our schools and society at large? In conclusion, I will share my opinion and recommendation on what should be done to address this ongoing dispute. My discussion through out this paper will focus on  the â€Å"Primetime† college sports programs in the NCAA; Men’s College Basketball and College Football. As these two sports represent virtually the face of the NCAA and college sports on TV and to the public. While the other college sports are as important to student athletes and schools, they don’t drive the same level of viewing power and revenue numbers for the NCAA and their respective schools. In my opinion college is suppose to be a place you go to earn an education an d determine your future career. Although many college athletes are going to the school that offers them the most money potential at the next level of their carriers, paying the athletes based on their current star power or future potential could have the potential to turn the entire college arena into a bidding war. You would stop seeing athletes go to a place because of tradition or loyalty, but instead to whom would pay them the most money. This in turn would kill the magic of college sports and the purity of the game. Where only a few large schools would have enough capital and buying power to buy the top performing and premier student athletes. If this would to happen, the Butler Bulldogs would have never made it to the NCAA College Basketball finals against UCONN just this past May, as Butler could never compete with the deep pockets of schools like Duke, Syracuse, UCONN, and Georgetown, just to name a few. You may also see free agency enter college sports. Although they would have to sit a year, what would stop players from jumping universities because of money? It would dramatically change the college sport world, as we know it today. Butler again comes to mind, as most of their top athletes would jump ship to another school after they finished 2nd in the 2010 NCCA finals, in the hope of getting more money. In the long run, paying college athletes will make it ok to pay non professional athletes and thus you could then see high schools develop the same principles. If you are paying a player at the college level because they bring in money, then Bloomfield High, New Britain high and other dominant high schools would do the same, and you then re-create the problems I already mentioned. While the arguments above raise good concerns, I do have some major issues with college athletes not getting paid as well. If an ordinary student receives a grant or scholarship based on their intellectual power of monetary limitations, then its perfectly legal for the student to get a job while in college and use that money for whatever they want. Ive seen this happen. One of my friends in college got a $50K  scholarship to Northeastern; no strings attached (except for keeping up the GPA), paid tuition with that money, and then used his talents after schools hours to become an independent contractor whil e still attending school. He made enough money on the side to buy a used car in cash and pay for a couple of spring break vacations and a few other â€Å"luxuries† currently unavailable to college athletes. While college athletes get free room, board, books, tuition and fees covered by the scholarship, they don’t have the luxury or option to earn extra money for additional expenses (car, travel, vacation, nice dinner, etc.) as they spend most if not all of their time practicing or traveling when outside the classroom, limiting the amount of time they have to find any part time job. On the other hand, they are plenty of non-athletic students in college who have an equally difficult time having a normative college experience because the job that they do work is used to cover the enormous expense of room, board, books, tuition and fees. Furthermore, many of those non-athlete students have to take on mounds and mounds of debt to be able to afford the very things the athletes are given. I bet more than a few of them would gladly give up their play money for the chance to finish college without being $100-150k in the hole. That being said, I am convinced that student athletes deserve t he same opportunity regular students have. They should have the opportunity to earn additional money to cover expenses currently covered by their parents, friends family or bank loans. Do I feel that the players should be paid some amount of money to pay for additional expenses? Yes. The amount of money these kids generate is in the Billions and they get nothing (monetary) in return, as if these athletes use college as the tool that it is, then they should at least be getting an education. However, it does not make sense for college players to have no money and barely able to get by, while someone makes a substantial amount of money off their talents. However, the payment should be controlled and limited to a defined amount. More on this a little later. In the past, Maryland’s head basketball coach Gary Williams made a public statement in which he denounced the present system of not paying athletes. His proposal was to give those players in revenue-producing sports a stipend of $200/month. While I agree with Mr. Williams approach and argument, I disagree with the payment amount and structure. In my opinion his argument makes perfect sense and achieves a realist solution. He  points out that college athletics – specifically basketball and football are making a fortune for the NCAA, the schools, the coaches, the staff and filtering down to just about everyone else in the athletic department and sometimes even to other parts of the school. However, not a c ent is being given to those who are actually providing the product on the court and field. You know, the product that we love to watch and talk about during water breaks in the office, the product that creates so much exhilaration every weekend to millions of people across the US and world! Again, I realize the argument is that they are being given free housing and a free scholarship, etc. The problem is that there isn’t another kid at the school that has to have a life based upon $0 extra income to buy what he wants. As I mentioned above, these individuals don’t have the time to work and earn extra money, so they will be tempted to take some extra cash or a trip or a meal at a fancy restaurant from a â€Å"friend† or â€Å"acutance†. Who wouldn’t be? And there lies the problem. The student athletes under the current system will always be faced with the hard decision not to break the rules and laws, which honestly, other students don’t have to deal with. As I pointed out before and Williams makes the same point, regular kids are allowed to receive living expenses and spending money as part of financial aid from family, friends or even strangers. Since athletes cannot, they are clearly being discriminated against. The student athlete might bring thousands if not millions of dollars to the school and more importantly the NCAA in one way or the other, but how much does any other student bring to the school? In addition to the moral argument of making students paid employees of the school while attending school, there’s the cost argument. Can the NCAA and schools really afford it? The answer might surprise and shock you at the same time. The NCAA negotiated an $11 Billion (with a B) deal for the 2011 NCAA tournament. Not the regular season, just the tournament – and that’s just NCAA basketball. Doing some analysis show that, there are 346 Division One schools in basketball. If each one of them has 13 players, that’s 4,498 players. Divide $11 Billion by 4,498 and you get†¦ over $2 million per player! These figures clearly indicate that both the NCAA and schools could afford to pay the students athletes some monetary figure, more on that later. Clearly the argument is no longer about money! Or is it? Between 2004 and 2010, fewer than 7 percent of all Division I sports programs  generated positive net revenue, according to NCAA data. Fewer than 12 percent of all Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools — 14 out of 120 — did so in fiscal year 2009. For that matter, the NCAA reports that only 50 percent to 60 percent of FBS football and basketball programs make money. In other word s, a significant chunk of top-level FBS programs are losing money. Should those programs be obliged to pay their football and basketball players, even though they aren’t actually producing a net profit. Paying student athletes large sums of money based on their natural ability would destroy the college sports, as we know it today and potential drive schools out of business into bankruptcy. Obviously a large majority of D-1 schools can’t afford to pay students athletes even if it was legal today. So, where’s the money going? As I mentioned before, the NCAA is signing record deals with the networks, shouldn’t that money go back to the schools? Nobody can answer this question with certainty, but one thing is clear, the NCAA could afford to compensate the student athletes, based on their current revenue streams. My recommended solution will address this disparity in D-1 schools and their ability to lash out money to pay student athletes. Indeed, with many coaches and college experts, the biggest problem with paying players isnt a money issue. Its the legal and structural chaos that would result. In an interview with PBSs Frontline that aired a few weeks back, NCAA president Mark Emmert said it would be utterly unacceptable to convert students into employees. Emmert had reason to be adamant. What happens when college athletes become employees? Can they collectively bargain? Can they strike? Do injured players receive workmans comp? Are players at state schools eligible for subsequent retirement benefits? Do only football and mens basketball players receive salaries? Should a star point guard earn more than a third-string center? Should an All-American quarterback earn more than his entire offensive line? Who decides and who controls all of these decisions? The NCAA? The School? Since student athletes are prohibited in gathering any additional money, the NCAA is making efforts to help support the future of college sports by helping to funnel $750 million over 11 years into funds strictly designed to benefit these athletes. This money is ideally going to be used by the NCAA to help fund student-athletes who are looking for clothing, emergency travel, educational and medical expenses, personal needs and also a injury  insurance. Even though this is a very nice touch by the NCAA organization, it however does not address the real issue of allowing college athletes in earning money, which can be used a the discretion of the student-athlete. Until that day comes, the future student-athletes have a lot of hard work, dedication and lessons to be learned from before they are all worthy enough of being able to accept salaries for their individual efforts. It is a fact that since its birth, the NCAA has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry and some experts feel college athletes should begin to benefit financially from the large revenues. The NCAA brought in more than a billion dollars more than what the NBA generated globally in the 2009-10 season, according to the most recent estimate from Forbes. One of the biggest revenue-creating sports a part of the NCAA today is college football that has come a long way since the establishment of the Harvard, Yale and Princeton football association. Recently in the last five years a few football teams have financially stood out amongst their competitors in the NCAA. NCAA players, coaches and officials constantly argue for the paying of student-athletes because for them the primary reason for massive profit earnings is due to the thanks of the hard work of their student-athletes. College athletes are constantly seeing their jersey numbers on the racks of their campus bookstores but instead of seeing any of the profits all they see is their coaches racking in multi-million dollar contracts year after year. In total there are 119 Division I-A football teams competing in the NCAA today and out of those a reported 42 of those team’s coaches received more than $1 million salaries, at least nine receiving more than $2 million. In Basketball, the University of Connecticut last year signed a 5-year contract with coach Jim Calhoun worth approximately $11M – including speaking and media fees. This is one of the biggest reasons why players argue for their own salary incomes due to the financial successes of their own coaches and seeing them living extravagant lifestyles. Meanwhile, would each salaried player on a given team be paid the same amount? If not, who would decide whether the All-American linebacker deserved more money than the All-American wide receiver, or whether Kemba Walker was more valuable than the star power forward, Jeremy Lamb. Would 18-year-olds be negotiating â€Å"contracts† with officials in their athletic department? Would they be hiring agents before high-school graduation? And how would all this affect  those sports programs that depend on football and basketball revenue to stay afloat? To pose an discuss these questions is to realize that paying college athletes merit salaries based on their â€Å"book value† is simply unrealistic and unfeasible. Still, the current NCAA rules are deeply flawed, and many players are indeed being ex ploited. Let’s face it: Big-time college football and basketball basically function as minor-league systems for the NFL and the NBA, respectively, while creating massive profits for everyone except the athletes. Scholarships are financially valuable, sure. But according to many experts, the average scholarship falls about $5,000 short of covering an athlete’s â€Å"essential† college expenses. Closing that gap — My proposed solution would address the majority of these concerns, if not completely eliminate them. Many experts have reach a determination that college sports have already effectively become professionalized. Given the N.C.A.A.’s abandonment of standard honored amateur principles, many experts argued, that there’s not a good enough reason preventing athletes from engaging in the same entrepreneurial activities as their celebrity coaches. Big-time college athletes should be able to endorse products, get paid for speaking engagements and be compensated for the use of their likenesses on licensed products. After all, aren’t non-athlete students allowed to go on a TV show like â€Å"MTV SpringBreak† and receive money for their appearances and efforts? If non-athletes students are a llowed, why can’t students athletes appear on ESPN shows and get paid for it? They should! They should be allowed to also negotiate an actual contract with the N.B.A. as part of a final project in a finance class, and have an agent from the day they decide to. In the past few years, the NCAA has cracked down on players taking illegal benefits from â€Å"agents and boosters†. USC was under two years of probation for the Reggie Bush affair. Cecil Newton openly shopped his son around to SEC schools. And just a few months back, the University of Connecticut was found guilty and punished by the NCAA for violating its rules and laws. Schools, coaches and athletes decide to take these risks and break the rules because they know what’s a stake, millions and millions of dollars. All of these things are clearly against NCAA rules, but how fair are the rules? We all know how much money colleges bring in off of the hard work of these kids, and we all know what its like to be young and poor. Should college football players be paid or at least allowed to accept benefits? After long  hours of research, deliberation and studying both sides of the argument in paying student athletes for their services to the NCAA and respective schools, I came up with the following recommendations. Frist and foremost, student athletes should continue to receive scholarships from their schools with the same benefits as they receive today. I also think that we should not pay large salaries to these athletes based on their personal ability or star potential as it would turn college into even more of a business and less of an academic institution. Furthermore if would open the floodgates for paying athletes very large sums of money. It has been said again and again; more money more pr oblems. However, I also believe that it is unfair for these athletes not to receive anything for the services they provide to their schools which yield millions and millions of dollars in profits, prestige recognition and increase in student enrollments, all very positive for the school’s bottom line. In my opinion, students’ athletes should receive from the NCAA NOT their schools a yearly payment (for all 4 years) equal to the average school annual tuition amount– in other words, take all D1 schools, average out the full tuition across all schools and make that the payment to every school athlete. This money would come from the lucrative contracts the NCAA signs with TV networks, clothing companies, etc. While in some cases this represents more income than what students could need, it would eliminate calculating complex and unfair student payments, and give student athletes additional spending money. It would also avoid any student athlete from choosing one school over the other because of this payment, as it would be the same independent of what school they eventually select. This approach would also eliminate the fact that a majority of D-1 schools have a negative balance sheet and realistically can’t afford to pay any student athlete’s salaries. If not else, it certainly would be a great deterrent for the vast majority of otherwise good players, but not ready to jump to the NFL or NBA early.

The Scandal of Larry Craig

The Scandal of Larry Craig Larry Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport on a suspicion of Lewd Conduct. The date that this incident happened was on June 11th, 2007. Craig was arrested after trying to have sex with another male in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport bathroom. What he didnt know is that the man he was trying to have sex with ended up being an undercover officer, the officer was undercover because of complaints about a man trying to have sex with others in the bathroom, this has been going on for several weeks now. Larry Craig was the main person affected because of this incident, probably because he was the main person involved. Because of this incident Larry Craig lost many of his friends, a good amount of those friends were made through politics and were still in politics. One main friend he lost was Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts at the time of this incident. After the public heard about the incident, as you expected, there was a major backlash on Larry Craig and he was hated by many Americans. Many gay right activists were mad at Craig for making gay people look bad. At the time of this incident gays were trying to be treated equal to straight people because they werent equal at the time of this incident, so many people were mad for the sole fact that he interacted in a gay act like he did. In the end what really affected Larry Craig was that the incident cost him his political career. Larry Craig ended up serving the rest of his term as Senator because he refused to resign, but he did not end up running for re-election for the position because he knew just like everyone else did, that he would not win the re-election for Senator. He also was not liked by many other politicians after this incident. Another person affected because of the incident was Mitt Romney. Craig was one of the two Senators that were liaisons for Mitt Romneys 2008 Presidential Campaign. After this incident Mitt Romney was not a fan of Larry Craig, in fact Mitt Romney actually strongly disliked Larry Craig. Larry Craig made Mitt Romney look bad because of this incident, do the citizens of America really want a President that works with guys like this running the country? This ended up with Mitt Romney removing Larry Craig from anything to do with his Presidential Campaign then went on to talk badly about Craig to the public by saying Hes disappointed the American people (Hulse). The last person that was affected because of this incident was Mike Jones and the officer that arrested him. Mike Jones told the public that Larry Craig offered him $200 to have oral sex with him in a restroom. After this was told to the public and a reporter asked Larry Craig, he responded by saying Mike Jones was lying just to try to promote his new book about the incident between Mike and Ted Haggard (Hulse). So Larry Craig just said Mike was trying to just get money from his incident and that it isnt alright to do. Lastly, was the officer that arrested Craig. They never released the officers name, which is understandable because this was a big incident. Craig tried to have sex with him in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport restroom, after he made the arrest Larry Craig tried to blackmail the officer by showing his badge that showed he was a part of the government and then said So, what do you think about that? This incident occurred on August 8th, 2007. There are many facts about this government scandal. One fact is that he was arrested for disorderly conduct in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. Another fact about this scandal is that Larry Craig ended up sending a signed petition to the court and the petition pled guilty for misdemeanor charge was accepted and filed to the court on August 8th, 2007. When this was released to the public he said that he regretted pleading guilty because he was innocent. He said that he only plead guilty to the charges because he wanted this to just fly over and not go on, but it ended up backfiring and lasting along time. Larry Craig said that he just wanted to get this over as quick as possible and get on with his life and duty as one of the Senators of the United States. The time frame of this incident was in August 2007. But apparently he has been doing things like this for years but never got caught or had it released to the public until now. No one really knows if these reports about it happening in the past are true, but they know that the incident in August 2007 was real and it happened. At the time of this incident many other things were also happening in the world. One surrounding circumstance was the Phoenix spacecraft launched towards Mars. They launched the Phoenix spacecraft on August 4th, 2007. Another surrounding circumstance was that the war in Afghanistan was going on. The war in Afghanistan started in October 2001 because of the tragic incident of 9/11. This war was a long war that lasted 13 years, it eventually ended in 2014, three years after the US killed the man responsible for 9/11. The mans name was Osama Bin Laden and he was killed on May 2, 2011 in Pakistan which is a country that borders Afghanistan. He was in his hideout that he had. The last thing that was a surrounding circumstance in 2007 was the Iraq war. The US was in the middle of two wars in 2007. This war started in March 2003 because of an invasion in Iraq that was led by the United States. This war was also long but didnt last as long as the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq lasted 8 years. It ended in December 2011 because Obama decided it was a good idea to just end the war and pull out. In this scandal there were many rumors that had spread during this scandal. After this scandal, a gay rights activist Michael Rogers came out and told the public that this wasnt the first time that Larry Craig has done something like this. He said there were multiple similar occasions that something like this had happened to other people. The first one he has tied Craig to be in happened in 1982. Rogers also said that it has been happening in multiple locations all over the United States not just in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport where this incident took place. All these incidents were reported to a reporter for the Idaho Statesman. Michael Rogers wasnt the only person to come out and say that Craig has done this before. Up to eight other gay men came up to the reporter for Idaho Statesman saying that they had either sexual encounters with Larry Craig or him attempting to engage in sexual conduct with them. Four of the eight men gave good details about their encounters with Craig, it wasnt proven if they had happened or not but it caused some discussion. The most recent encounter that had been reported came from a 40 year old man who claimed that he and Craig had engaged in oral sex in 2004. None of these reports had been proven true nor had they been proven false. They were all just rumors and not many know if these reports had been true or not. Because of this incident the government took a huge hit. Craig has been in politics along time and he was liked by many other politicians previous to this incident. Larry Craig lost many political friends because of this and there was a huge debate whether or not if they should allow Craig to stay as Senator. They decided that Craig could remain and serve the rest of his term as Senator. Craig did end up serving the rest of his term. Many people looked at the government badly for allowing a man who did this remain the Senator and not kicking him out of his position. They were mad because they didnt want a corrupt man helping run this country, they looked at it as not right. After Craigs term was up he did not re-run in the election as Senator because everyone knew that if he did he would not win. The only one to really suffer because of this incident is Larry Craig. After this incident Craig returned to his duty as Senator of the United States. He refused to resign from his position, but after his term as Senator he lost his job and didnt re-run in the upcoming election as Senator. This isnt the only thing that that ended for him. He ended his career in politics. Another person that you could argue suffered from this incident was Mitt Romney. Craig was one of the two Senators liaisons for Mitt Romneys 2008 presidential campaign. This incident made Romney look bad and he dropped Craig from being a part of anything to do with his presidential campaign. Mitt Romney ended up losing this election and Craig didnt impact his campaign positively. Craig wasnt the main reason he lost but would Romney have gotten more votes if this didnt happen? Nobody knows. Craig probably didnt lose the election for Romney but he sure didnt help Romneys chances. The last thing that suffered because of this incident was the government because Craig had been a part of politics for a long time. He had many friends and was trusted by many people that were in politics. This incident caused a man that was high in politics to lose his job and end his career. There were many outcomes after this Scandal. Mostly it affected Larry Craig and his life. Larry Craig ended up serving the rest of his term as the Senator, then decided that he is done with his political career after this incident. He didnt re-run because he wouldve lost and he knew that. One thing that happened that is kind of interesting is that the TV show Law and Order made an episode that replicated the whole Larry Craig scandal. The episode was called Political Animal. They used things in the episode such as the foot tapping that Craig apparently did in the stalls, and when the officer in the episode arrested the councilman, the councilman yelled Im not gay to resemble what Larry Craig also did. The last thing is the stalls in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport that this incident happened in started to gain notoriety. The airport then decided that they should demolish the stalls this incident occurred in and did so. In ending, this scandal wasnt one of the biggest to occur in the United States history. But the government did take a hit and this scandal was very popular and talked about. This incident will always be remembered as a weird scandal because no one really expected Craig to do something like this, yet it has been apparently going on for years and kept quiet.

Appeasement Essay -- essays research papers

The 1920s had a good outlook towards peace, but near the end of the decade and throughout the 1930s signs of war were forming. Leaders arose in countries that were unsatisfied with the results of World War I. Germany, Italy, and Japan took aggressive actions, and neither the League of Nations nor the democratic countries were stopping them. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain suggested the policy of appeasement towards Hitler to keep peace. Europe moved closer to war as these actions were made. World War II had propelled with the lack of judgement by the League of Nations by continuous appeasing Hitler. September 3, 1939 was when the world plunged into World War II. The main reason for the cause of this war was the policy of appeasement. Before the war started, In October 1935, Mussolini ordered a massive invasion of Ethiopia. After Italy attacked, Haile Selassie, leader of Ethiopia, asked the League of Nations for help. In document 2, Haile Selassie, requested the League of Nations help stop the invasion and when the League’s response was ineffective he said, â€Å" God and history will remember your judgement†¦It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.† By now, Hitler came to power and was leading the Nazi’s in the Third Reich. They had also became the largest political party. In March 1935, the Fuhrer (Hitler) announced that Germany would not obey the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. The League of Nations only issued a mild warning for the rebuilding of Germany’s a...

Critical Thinking Model Example

1. I believe a college education is the most important goal a young person should pursue. 2. From my point of view the concept of a ‘college’ is an accredited institution that offers a liberal arts program in addition to specific subject areas. Its importance should be in the top 3 areas of a young person’s life. 3. An example would be the small college I attended where I was introduced to a broad liberal education. 4. I have always held this view.My parents influenced me and then I was able to ‘test’ this view out when I chose my college and the degrees I earned. I always knew you could major in a lot of areas without the need to be that specific. 5. I am assuming that most people have the opportunity to experience college and can afford it. They have both the resources and the will to succeed in college. 6. A liberal education introduces the student to a vast body of knowledge, encourages them to become a free thinker and provides a foundation from which they can build upon and refer back to.Studies suggest that top employers value good communication skills, problem solving skills and the ability to think independently. A liberal education provides this skill. 7. Another POV is that people excel in lots of different areas and can pursue a trade college or skill and begin making money right after high school. 8. Even though many people do not have the ability or resources to go to college and begin working, I conclude if resources and talents allow, a liberal education is an invaluable pursuit in a young person’s life. . The consequences of believing in a liberal education are that colleges need to continue to receive the proper funding to keep liberal arts programs running and alive. They also need to make sure that enough aid is awarded to those students that cannot afford to attend. And finally, family and work need to take a backseat in order to fulfill the requirements of college life.

The Chemistry Behind How Febreze Works

The Chemistry Behind How Febreze Works Does Febreze remove odors or merely mask them? Heres the chemistry behind how Febreze works, including information about its active ingredient, cyclodextrin, and how the product interacts with odors. Febreze was invented by Procter Gamble and introduced in 1996. The active ingredient in Febreze is beta-cyclodextrin, a carbohydrate. Beta-cyclodextrin is an 8-sugar ringed molecule that is formed via an enzymatic conversion of starch, usually from corn. How Febreze Works The cyclodextrin molecule resembles a doughnut. When you spray Febreze, the water in the product partially dissolves the odor, allowing it to form a complex inside the hole of the cyclodextrin doughnut shape. The stink molecule is still there, but it cant bind to your odor receptors, so you cant smell it. Depending on the type of Febreze youre using, the odor might simply be deactivated or it might be replaced with something nice-smelling, such as a fruity or floral fragrance. As Febreze dries, more and more of the odor molecules bind to the cyclodextrin, lowering the concentration of the molecules in the air and eliminating the odor. If water is added once again, the odor molecules are released, allowing them to be washed away and truly removed. Some sources say that Febreze also contains zinc chloride, which would help to neutralize sulfur-containing odors (e.g., onions, rotten eggs) and might dull nasal receptor sensitivity to smell, but this compound is not listed in the ingredients, at least in the spray-on products.