Barriers to Critical thinking

Work that demonstrates the qualities in this column is considered to be excellent work or an A Demonstrates Basic Skill Sets Work that demonstrates the qualities in this column Is considered to be Average to Above Average, or B to C Demonstrates Skill Building Needed on Skill Sets Work that demonstrated the qualities in this column is considered to be below average or a D or F The discussion put forth in this assignment demonstrates excellent communication skills.The topics are explored with explicit detail and analysis. Writing skills are excellent, communicating Ideas succinctly. This work functions at the top of the assignment guidelines. This depth of discussion in this work is demonstrated by the work meeting or exceeding the high word count range listed in the assignment. The discussion put forth in this assignment demonstrates an understanding of the assignment but perhaps does not fully develop the Ideas In a complex content. Details may be missing or not fully explained. Cri tical connections are not completely roger between opinions and commentary/source materials.The writing skills may need some development. This work functions at the mid-range of the assignment guidelines. The depth of discussion in this work is demonstrated by meeting the middle of the word count range in the assignment. Connection to the assignment concepts. Faulty or unfocused commentary does not show a clear-cut thought process. Little to no connection is made between opinions and outside sources for support. The writing skills need to be developed in order to enhance communication of ideas in writing. This work functions as the lower range of the assignment guidelines.The depth of discussion in this work is demonstrated by not meeting the low/ minimum word count range given in the assignment, or Just meeting the minimum word count of the assignment. 75% The work provides comprehensive understanding of the assignment intent. 0 Content meets the assignment task requirements Conten t demonstrates critical thinking without bias 0 Content is complex enough to demonstrate a depth of understanding of the topic in focused discussion The work provides average to good understanding of the assignment intent. 0Content meets the assignment task requirements in general Content does not move beyond the average interpretation of the issue at hand, may present some bias Content is not complex enough to demonstrate a depth of discussion for the topic – more detailed discussion required – discussion may lack some focus The work provides a lack of understanding of the assignment intent. 0 Content does not meet the assignment task requirements demonstrate an understanding of the topic at hand, presents bias 0 Content is not complex enough to demonstrate an understanding of the topic – focus on the topic is not clear.

Assess Critically Three Causes of World War I Essay

World War I and its consequences have dominated European history since 1914. Because of the bitter controversy over the post-war peace treaties, the origins of the war continued to be an issue of utmost political importance in the years to come. The Great War had its roots in 1870 in the grand expansion and uncontrolled ambitions of Bismarck and the new Germany (Wolfson et al 1997). Imperialism, which began to emerge around the turn of the 20th century also played a decisive role. Fights over the colonies contributed to the establishment of complex set of international alliances, which helped to destabilize the European balance of power and when combined with the third factor – instability in the Balkan region – inevitably sparked off the First World War. Besides the three main causes, they were also other conditions, like the arms race between Germany and Britain, a process of social-economic modernization in Europe, the increasing importance of international prestige, the underestimation of the counterpart’s power, which also contributed to the outbreak of the war. As Joll (1990) argues, there were also philosophical facts that had great impact in the evolution of the tragic events of 1914. The prevalent Darwinian ideas of the survival of the fittest, of the struggle for existence were among European statesmen prior 1914. The Versailles Treaty, signed in June 1919 unambiguously blamed Germany, the military regime of the Kaiser, William II and his allies for causing all the loss and damage they imposed upon Europe between 1914-1918. In the eighty- five years since the war ended however there has been a growing awareness, that the origins of the war were far more complex. Historians have studied not only the tangle of alliances and treaties which existed before the war but also the connections between the political and military spheres, the influence of domestic policies, and the national myths and traditions (Merriman 1996). Looking back in history, the Franco-Prussian War (1870) completely changed the balance of power in Europe and strengthened Germany’s position as the leading continental power. The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine never healed the wounds in France, and poisoned the relations between the two countries down to 1914. European politics from the 1880s was dominated by a dense web of alliances and treaties, which aimed to consolidate Germany’s position in Europe. However, Bismarck’s international relations were only successful in the short-term and in the long-term they were plagued by insecurity and mistrust. As one alliance developed, it aroused the distrust of those states excluded from it, which then created counter-alliances (Joll 1990). French hostility was inevitable but Britain and Russia had also become deeply suspicious of German policies. But insecurity ruled also between the Russians and the French, the French and the British, the Serbs and the Russians, and the Germans and the Austrians. By the time Bismarck left office in 1890, his only reliable German allies were the Dual Monarchy of Austro-Hungary and Italy, and this remained the position in 1914. By 1914 the key European alliances were: -Germany-Austro-Hungary (1789) -France-Russia (1893) -Entente Cordial between England-France (1904) -The Triple Entente between England France and Russia (1907) and -Russia-Serbia (1914) Out of the great European powers only Austro-Hungary entered the war with a clear aim: to end the challenge of the South-Slav nationalism; the other participants fought for their survival as Great Powers. So Austria has to bear also some responsibility for the outbreak of the war. Russia was not ready for war, she desperately needed to avoid another humiliation as in 1905 in the Russo-Japanese war – the first time in history, when white supremacy became endangered. The British government was also reluctant to become involved in the war, it had its own problems with the Irish Home Rule, with strikes and suffragettes (Gildea 1996). France was also on the defensive side, she had its socialists to worry about, but she highly relied on the Russian alliance given the danger of the German attack. Imperialism played a decisive role in the escalation of the tensions between the Great Powers at the outbreak of the war in 1914. As Marxist historians considered, imperial expansion was the logical extension of the development of monopoly capitalism, and such it would lead to war and eventually to international revolution (Wolfson et al 1997). The motives for swift colonial expansion prior the Great War were mixed and complex. There was a strong ideological belief in the superiority of European culture, but also the possession of colonies was a factor of world power. Imperialism poisoned the relations between the Great Powers from the 1870s. Although the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 had settled the principles of European colonisation, further disagreements developed among the parties over territory, access to raw materials and markets, thus leading to series of crisis, like the Fashoda incident (1898), or the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) (Merriman 1996). The issue of control over the Suez Canal particularly embittered the relation between Britain and France, because France was deeply jealous of British colonial supremacy. Germany was keen to exploit this rupture to win France over to his side, and to bully Great Britain into making concessions to Germany (Gildea 1996). However, the Anglo-German rivalry, which became acute by 1914, was the most important clash among the Great Powers (Eksteins 1989). British statesmen were eager to uphold certain principles in Europe. They were concerned by the prospect of any nation becoming too powerful and providing a threat to British world power. Germany, which had been united as recently as 1871, and within one generation had become an awesome industrial and military power, posed real danger to the British pre-eminence and mastery in Europe. However the most dangerous acceleration came in the field of naval expansion. Since Britain held her navy to be vital, any attempt to rival it by another power, particularly Germany would meet a spirited response (Wolfson et al 1997 ). Britain also feared that Germany and Russia might make common cause, for instance in the Middle East (Stone 1973). However there were many other signs that the alliance system was overheating in the years before 1914. Morocco – rich in mineral and agricultural wealth – on the northern coast of Africa had become a central feature of the world politics because it combined a variety of aims and interest (Wolfson et al 1997). It provided an opportunity for colonial expansion, and also to enhance European aims in relative safety. By 1900 several European countries were eager to exploit the resources of Morocco, particularly Germany and France coveted the place. In 1904, in the ‘Entente Cordial’ Britain had recognised French interest over the country. Germany was not consulted of these negotiations. In the Algeciras conference in 1906 Germany found herself deserted by all but Austro-Hungary, and the German delegation had to be satisfied with a share of international control of Moroccan finances (Wolfson et al ibid). In 1911 when France was given a protectorate in Morocco, Kaiser William attacked the Moroccan port, Agadir, to protect German interests there. Although direct confrontation was avoided when the Germans were compensated by an offer of territory in the French Kongo, this compromise could only offer a temporary solution to the Franco-German conflict, since Germany was dissatisfied with the resolution. The Agadir crisis also had harmful consequences for the peace of Europe. On the one hand, Germany had suffered a diplomatic defeat, but on the other hand, the British, French and Russian governments were alarmed by the aggressive attitude of the Germans. France was also humiliated, which fact stimulated the awakening of national feeling in France (Gildea 1996). The growth of opposition to imperial rule resulted in the emergence of nascent nationalist movements in Europe. The principle of national self-determination had been gaining force since the revolutions of 1848, and revolutionary nationalism in various forms threatened the Ottoman, Austrian, German, Russian and British Empires. The war of 1914 was also due to the unbearable national tensions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the attempts of that power to escape from them by action dangerous to peace (Wolfson et al 1997). Austro-Hungary had always been a multi-racial state and the subject races were now rebelling against it. Nationalism of the different nationalities within the empire profoundly threatened the stability of its power, and thus the empire sought a swift and easy victory that would reunite the nationalities against a common enemy. So, finally, it was the Balkan which was the tinderbox for the outbreak of the war. The national struggles of the Balkan people were complicated by the rivalry between the powers in the area. Of the five great powers, Russia, Austria and Germany were particularly interested in the area either on political, or cultural reasons. Also, the control of the Balkan meant an abundant supply of cheap raw materials, a populous market and a large field for profitable investment for the rival parties. In 1908 the Ottoman provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had been occupied by Austria Hungary since the Congress of Berlin in 1878, were annexed by the Austro-Hungarian government, mainly to prevent these Slav provinces from being absorbed by the Slav kingdom of Serbia. These Turkish provinces were of great strategic importance to the Habsburgs. Russia, the protector of the South Slavs, didn’t fight over this issue, because she was compensated by access to the Mediterranean. However, as an immediate repercussion to the Bosnian crisis, Russia constructed a Balkan block as a bulwark against further Austrian expansion. The success of the Balkan League (1912) against the Turkish Ottoman Empire horrified the Great Powers. Each of the new Balkan powers had made significant gains of both territory and prestige. These gains endangered the plans of Russia and Austro-Hungary for the domination, if not annexation, of the Balkan (Wolfson et al 1997). The emergence of a victorious Serbia grew particularly troublesome in the region. The Czar felt that Russia had suffered a diplomatic defeat because due to Austrian insistence she could not obtain Albania for Serbia. Austria-Hungary considered her ambitions to reach the Aegean directly affected, and she also considered that a powerful Serbian state might be dangerous if it reached the sea, and under the influence of Russia might be able to close Austria’s only outlet, the Adriatic. Therefore some of the bolder statesmen of the Dual Monarchy desired to keep Serbia always dependent. The consequences of the Balkan Wars directly led to the outbreak of the First World War. The increasingly serious crises sparkled the murder of the Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne at Sarajevo by Bosnian students. They opposed the Trialism that advocated the integration of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Kingdom of Serbia, but the Serbian government was not responsible in the killing (Gildea 1996). However, the crisis couldn’t have developed further, if imperial tensions hadn’t poisoned the relation between the Great Powers. In the approach to the outbreak of the First World War three factors were crucial. Imperialism, the system of international alliances, and the rising nationalism. However, the ambitions and strategies of the Great Powers, colonial rivalry, awakening national pride were also decisive factors. Imperialism fuelled conflicts among the Great Powers, particularly when it threatened the participants’ pride, and interest. But it also led to the frustrations of ethnic minorities, which in turn sparkled violent reactions. The Morocco crisis increased the sense of international insecurity and intensified the pressure on states to rearm. The Balkan Wars strengthened the position of the Balkan powers, which challenged the plans of Russia and Austria-Hungary for domination. Each of these clashes had the potential to ignite a European war and while none solely contributed to the outbreak of war, they certainly assisted in the creation of a complex series of international alliances geared towards mutual protection against mutual enemies. B I B L I O G R A P H Y Eksteins, M. 1989. Rites of Spring. The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age. London: Bantam Press. Joll, J. 1990. Europe since 1870. London: Penguin. Gildea, R. 1996. Barricades and Borders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merriman, J. 1996. The History of Europe Vol 2. London: Norton. Stone, N. 1973. Europe Transformed 1878-1919. London: Fontana. Wolfson, R. Laver, J. 1997. Years of Change. Europe 1890-1945.

Harrison Bergeron Essay

Kurt Vonnegut’s fictional society adopted the theories of Social Contract and Social Justice to establish a new social and legal order. The people amended the constitution to attain equality for all. With the amendments, they created laws to make a uniform citizenry out of their people and in the process stripped them of their individuality. These laws were also intended to make them think and act alike which was their idea of equality. As to who is benefited from such extreme version of social control depends on whose viewpoint it was coming from. Despite their unrestricted freedoms no one was ultimately benefited in this kind of system. It was no guarantee of peace and absolute control, as in the case of Harrison. His physical and mental states were no match for the handicaps. Once both powers were unleashed and unrestrained what resulted was a blending and coordination that produced a beautiful symphony of dance and music. It was symbolical of the good things that can happen or that can be achieved if we let our natural gifts, talents and skills work for the common good. There can be unity in diversity and peaceful co-existence may be possible. In a controlled society as this fictional one, there were no norms, values, and culture that may identify them. For norms, values and culture were what will set them apart. This was a robotic society where the norms were that which are forced upon them because of the handicaps some were made to wear. Acceptable norms were absent because the standard (equality) was built into the system. In effect one had a common standard to follow in which to comport oneself, no less and no better that the others. There was only one value that stood, no one was above the other in appearance and in the treatment he gave and he got. Culture should define who and what this society was, but what would make it truly unique? There was nothing neither appealing nor interesting in it because everything went against the natural ways of man. People followed rules not out of their volition. How were they to know the good was turning bad, and worse was turning worst, if something in their brains signaled a censure. This restraint was basically against their good and benefit, but they had no choice but to obey what was programmed in their system. Once, this was a society that had reached the extreme end of the balance with their all-out freedoms and unchecked rights of individuals. The situation had reached unmanageable proportion that they had to resort to dramatic crisis control which brought them to the other extreme end by way of the encroachment on their rights and freedoms. This society took not only the people’s freedoms but their right senses as well. In what they figure to be the correct moves to effect change, their agitation towards a freak of nature was alarming, like when â€Å"some things about living weren’t quite right †¦ April not being Springtime† (Vonnegut, 1961). Law and society have interchangeable attributes. Law may change a society and society may change the law. In the case of Harrison Bergeron, society had made 3 amendments to their constitution out of desire for and necessity to change. They wanted to regulate and curb freedoms to a comfortable magnitude. The change in the law made this society a strictly tempered one. Lawyers and the legal system do not have a place in this society anymore. The Handicapper General proceeded to punish without trial law breakers. The only crime that can be committed was taking one’s handicaps off and that did not need investigation and defense. The crime and the criminal are self-evident. The fictional society does not have any direct similarities in today’s time. However, the inference to the curtailment of freedoms is plenty. When a society does not allow an artist to express his heart in his art, the Harrison Bergerons to criticize the government which should be for, by and of the people, and ease the fear of ordinary citizens, they are the translations of Vonnegut’s transgressions of freedoms in his fictional society. Instead of seeking for equality in the extreme, working with diversity might be the better option.

Summary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 165

Summary - Essay Example It is important to first understand the cause of the migration before attempting to provide a remedy. These causes, whatever they may be, can be termed as attractions. Thus, to counter this problem, it is required that better attractions be created in the country to lure people there. Take the analogy that the cities are magnets and people needles, to distribute people, it requires that stronger magnets than the cities be created. The country is associated with agricultural activities while the town with industrial activities. This has created a belief among people that there exists only two alternatives; the town and country. This is however, not true because a third alternative, that is a fusion of all the good qualities of town and country, exist and is the very solution that will pull people from the congested towns. Consider the town and country as two magnets each striving to attract people. Town has its advantages and disadvantages as does the country. Town-country is a marriage of the good qualities of town and country and thus does not have disadvantages. Town boasts better wages, comfortable homes, social amenities but with high rents and prices together with pollution. The country on the other hand is characterized by low rents, natural beauty and plentiful water but with a dull lifestyle, poor drainage and slum-like life where people huddle at one place leaving the rest deserted. Town and country need to be married to take advantage of their positive qualities. The combination enables the human society to be enjoyed together with beauty of nature. Town represents the society – man to man interaction through science, art and religion. Country represents God’s love for man – the source of life, the resource that drives industries and an inspiration for art and music. The fusion of town and country is therefore the main ingredient that will see rise of new hope, new life and new

Convincing Irans leadership to stop its nuclear program Assignment

Convincing Irans leadership to stop its nuclear program - Assignment Example The shahs, who you serve, are responsible for enforcing harsh laws which make Iranians comply with your government’s directives, since their fundamental human rights and freedoms have been ignored by your administration. Your media is a good example, where local journalists who voice their concerns are being silenced. As the international community, we have observed the following measures to deal with the situation which is slowly getting out of hand. As you well know, this is a way of thinking that is dangerous. The notion is that violence or the threat of it, must be responded to with violence, though in this modern day and age, seems outdated and uncivilized. As per your government’s behavior, you well know that vexing problems cannot be solved with force. This is not the correct method for America and the international community.1 Your country so far poses no existential threat. Your government is seen to be in internal disarray. We see that your political, economic and moral power is so inferior that resorting to terrorism and assassination to carry out international agenda seem to be your administration’s viable option. Your country threatens to develop nuclear capabilities, but you should know that the international community and your neighbors like Israel would not hesitate to resort to military action if and when the threat materializes, but as you know, military options against your country is not wise. This kind of retributive, vengeful action will lead us to even a trillion dollar expenditure.

Analyze a passage Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 5

Analyze a passage - Essay Example As the author puts it, it is finer and closely godlike to attain such success for city-states or for nations. The reasons support the thesis because they outline how success works to improve the growth of a nation. This refers to the all round development whereby all members of a given society, city or state, work hard t improve their status of living through pursuit if certain desires and sciences, as stipulated by the political leadership. The reasons are plausible in their own right that political science enables political leaders to forecast and determine the direction of growth and development that they want their nation to pursue. As such, they are able to determine the best sciences and studies for their citizens then encourage them to undertake a massive uptake for the general good of the nation. The passage plays an important role in the real world because it enables people to learn specific features of nation development and improvement. Political science enables unification of different opinions and converge them for the benefit of city-states or the nation. Such success receives nation-wide

Role of land use planning in judicious distribution of population, Essay

Role of land use planning in judicious distribution of population, housing, and infrastructure and orderly development of the built environment - Essay Example nd efficient development of the built environment, as well as resolving adverse consequences of development such as; urban traffic congestion, quality of life, housing, protection of environment and security among others. It assesses the structure of cities, towns and rural landscapes and how land use planning influences them. It also highlights differences in;  built form, mix of land uses, density, and size of property / land parcels, street layout and neighborhood pattern, treatment of the public realm as well as public and private transportation.   Land-use planning can be defined as the organized evaluation of geographical, social and economic aspects with the aim of supporting and empowering land users in identifying sustainable alternatives that enhance their output and also facilitate accomplishment of societal needs (FAO, 1993). The idea of land use planning should not only be conceptualized in terms of production. Rather, many other aspects such as land utility for example protected areas, leisure neighborhoods, transport, water catchments and dumping sites among others. Berke & Godschalk (2006) observed that land use planning is practiced in all societies although some do not apply the phrase. Failure in land use planning leads to degradation and depletion of land resources as well as conflicts in the use of common resources. In rural landscapes, lack of land use planning leads to poor productivity of land. The built-up area significantly affects the functioning of cities. This is the area that comprises human activities except the open areas that extend to more than four hectares, land that is under cultivation, forest land, water bodies and other parcels of land that are under no productive use. Airfields and highways that are not adjoining the urban used land are not classified among the built-up land (Honachefsky, 1999). There are differences in the built form of different cities, towns and rural landscapes. Most cities’ built form is