A Reflective on Senior Portfolio inTowson University Assignment

A Reflective on Senior Portfolio inTowson University - Assignment Example I have produced a term paper which directs on the New Mexico Medicaid and its Modernization Plan and an in-class presentation on cultural competence. On the paper, I only scored 85% due to the fact that I fail to correctly gather the entire relevant issues imperative for a correct interpretation of the study. On the oral presentation, I scored 90.3% partly because of partial mastery of the topic and certain demonstrations lapses like the lack of eye contact. Reflecting on these selections, I realized how important it is to be thorough, complete and all-encompassing in analyzing a particular issue. Professionally, working on these projects triggered my critical thinking skills needed in order to assimilate all possible aspects of a particular issue with the aim of delivering more accurate, comprehensive and wide-ranging interpretations and inferences that will serve as a focal point in making more effective solutions and developments. Further, the selections taught me the importance o f preparedness, self-confidence, and profoundness in terms of the knowledge about the topic to facilitate the delivery of an informed, knowledgeable presentation. The opportunities that were offered to me during the entire duration of my Master’s degree work, and the chances presented to me to work on the many societal issues related to the administration of health sciences, were all expansive and thought-provoking. Nevertheless, the learning that I received from my professors, classmates and my research projects widened my understanding about health administration by allowing me to directly experience the administrative practices involved in the research projects, by working together with professors, and most importantly, by reflecting on my personal encounters. Today, there are numerous cases of sexual relationships thriving in our society; in fact, they are proliferating in acceleration. This is a problem that has been existing for so many years, and yet because of the typ e of government we are living in, prostitution cases has continued to shoot up. It is an imperative societal problem that needs to be addressed as this destroys the lives of many young individuals who were unintentionally impregnated due to certain causes. These particular grounds triggered my interest in knowing the different causative factors encompassing the issues of promiscuity in relation to the activity of parenthood. As a result, I have conducted a study on the related pieces of literature pertaining to The Jamaican Adolescent study and one literature review on Father Presence matters. These selections capture my analytic abilities as it requires thorough and inquisitive scrutiny on the possible reasons why many young children, especially adolescents are indulging in oftentimes pre-marital sexual intercourse which according to my research and many other studies, promiscuity in children is attributable to the poor â€Å"father presence† during childhood. In conducting this study, it is important for me as a researcher to develop profound knowledge and sharp analytic expertise on the different overlapping issues and parallel studies that can be related to the topic at hand.

Philosophy metaphysics Essay Example for Free

Philosophy metaphysics Essay In order to clearly answer the first question, it is important first to answer the question – â€Å"what is the soul for Aristotle† and as such give an account of how he views substance and separability. Aristotle posits in de Anima that the soul is the substance in the sense which corresponds to the definitive formula of a things essence. That means that it is â€Å"the essential whatness’ of a body of the character just assigned. (Book II, 412b). As such, the soul is the essence of being and the essence of being is its substance. By being, Aristotle refers to the thing itself while by essence he refers to the primary essence of the thing itself wherein one is treated as the subject in its own right i. e. the good itself is treated as the essence of the good. It can be deduced then, using hypothetical syllogism that if soul is the essence of a being and the essence of being is its substance, then the soul is the substance of a being. He argued further that whatever is has a being, whatever has a being has a substance – this as the grounding of his epistemology. Hence, whatever is has a substance. This implies then that being is identical to substance. If such is the case, then using the principle of excluded middle, being is also identical to soul. Now, let us elucidate the concept of separability. Aristotle first distinguished the difference between the body and the soul. The body as he stated corresponds to what exists in potentiality, it being the subject or matter of a possible actuality. Soul, on the other hand, is a substance (actuality) in the sense of the form of a natural body having life potentially within it; it is the actuality of the body. Aristotle, Book II, 421b) As he delineates the dissimilarity between the body and soul, one should not be mislead in regarding the two as separate entities. They are at some point seems to be separate for in the former we are talking about a corporeal body in its spatio-temporal existence while in the latter we are talking of an incorporeal body transcending in the spatio-temporal world. However, their separability in terms of space and time does not mean they are separate as whole – that is an entity having life. As Aristotle argues â€Å"the soul is inseparable from its body, or at any rate that certain parts of it are (if it has parts) for the actuality of some of them is nothing but the actualities of their bodily parts†. (Aristotle, Book II, 413a). He argues further that â€Å"body cannot be the actuality of the soul; it is the soul which is the actuality of a certain kind of body. Hence the soul cannot be without a body, while it cannot be a body; it is not a body but something relative to a body. That is why it is in a body and a body of a definite kind†. (Book I, 421a). It can be deduced then that soul and the body are inseparable with each other. It is because the essence of both their existence lies in the interdependency of their telos – the soul actualizing the potential life in the body while the body providing an entity for the soul to actualize itself in the material world. Since the soul is the actuality of natural body, then naturally it would have certain functions which it can actualize. Aristotle has identified these functions to be the following: (1. ) powers of self-nutrition or the nutritive function; (2. powers of sensation which includes the sensory and appetitive function; (3. ) the power of movement and rest or the locomotive function and (4. ) the power of thinking. With these functions, he posited a psychic power of hierarchy. He claimed that of the psychic powers mentioned above, some kinds of beings posses all of these, some possess less than all while others posses only one. As such, evidently, the plants possess the p ower of self-nutrition wherein they can grow up or down and increase or decrease in all direction as long they can find nutrients in the soil. It is through their own means that they continue tolive. Even though the plants possess only one function of the soul, it is a great wonder how they continuously subsist on their own. Next is the power of sensation, which is possessed by all animals. All animals possessed the power of sensation because they all have the primary form of sense, which is touch. Aristotle defended and further elaborated this notion in de Anima. To wit: if any order of living things has the sensory, it must also have the appetitive; for appetite is the genus of which desire, passion, and wish are the species; now all animals have one sense at least, viz. ouch, and whatever has a sense has the capacity for pleasure and pain and therefore has pleasant and painful objects present to it, and wherever these are present, there is desire, for desire is just appetition of what is pleasant. (BookII, 414b) From the arguments stated above, it can be evidently inferred not just how Aristotle proven that all animals possess at least one sense, the touch, but also how he sci entifically deduced that all animals by virtue of their sensory function, possess appetitive function, too. From all these animals, there are some which possessed the power of locomotion, advancing them to a higher stratum. These are animals which can execute any kind of movements together with the capacity to halt such movement. Lastly, the human beings possessed all of the above-mentioned functions placing them on the top of the hierarchy. They posses the power of thinking, which is the essential feature of the human beings and which separates them apart from all other species. Analyzing the theoretical framework Aristotle succumbed to, it can be construed then that for him every being has a soul. This is evidently manifested in his attempt to prove the groundings of his epistemology extending his claim to the psychic hierarchy wherein he posited that every kind of living thing – any entity for that matter possesses certain function/s of the soul It should be put in mind, however, that even Aristotle posited the different functions of the soul; they are in essence, inseparable. An example of this is the function of nutrition (by eating) which human beings in particular do in order to properly and clearly think. The latter being also a function of the soul. Evidently, every function of the soul is interconnected with each other especially in the case of the Homo sapiens, who possessed all the enumerated functions of the soul. Aristotle notions of intellect can be rooted in his conception of knowledge – in his epistemology. It is from his conception of knowledge arises his other assertions on how he views the world. It is common sensical then to claim that his conception of the mind or any other things transcending from their spatio-temporal existence, his metaphysics, is grounded on his epistemology. As such, it is with utmost importance to first answer how Aristotle regards the nature of knowledge and how does one able to acquire knowledge so as to provide an answer on his notion of intellect. Knowledge for him can only be found within the material world – that is things, which are intelligible by senses. It is then through our experience with this objects in their spatio-temporal existence that we come to know them. He mentioned the processes of how we can arrive to know these objects – by perception, discrimination and thinking. By perception here, I mean the process of how our senses operate to recognize things in the material word. Discrimination then comes simultaneous with perception in order to give a concrete description of the thing being perceived. In example, upon the perception of a certain plant, we can able to distinguish its structure and other ontical features as the mind started to categorized. As a corollary, we arrived at the conclusion that what we perceived is indeed a plant. From there, we judged that what we perceived is indeed a plant and hence, arriving in the state of thinking. It can be deduced then that through thinking, one can able to comprehend the ontical features of an object and by virtue one’s reason, its primary essence. By primary essence, I mean the telos or the end itself of a thing. Since reason for Aristotle is innate in human beings so is intellect. It is because for Aristotle, reason is an essential property of the mind – that is of the intellect. If that is the case, then reason for Aristotle is relatively tantamount to the intellect. Husserl, on the other hand regarded the process of intuition as the first level of cognition wherein the objects are grasp in its original thru experience. This is also the case when one is cognizing objects of mere representations which includes but not limited to pictorial intuitions and any means of symbolic indications. To wit, experiencing is consciousness that intuits something and values it to be actual; experiencing is intrinsically characterized as consciousness of the natural object in question and of it as the original: there is consciousness of the original as being there in person. The same thing can be expressed by saying that objects would be nothing at all for the cognizing subject if they did not appear to him, if he had of them no phenomenon. Here, therefore, phenomenon signifies a certain content that intrinsically inhabits the intuitive consciousness in question and is the substrate for its actuality valuation. (Husserl, p. 3) It is only but logical to infer that experience plays a vital role in the cognition of a certain object. As such, it is only upon experience, can one theorized and moved to a higher level of cognition. A thing must first be intuited before one can theorize about them. And after theorizing, comes the process of reflection. Evidently, both Aristotle and Husserl believed in the value of experience in which the former calls perception and the latter intuition. From these processes arises higher forms of cognition wherein the end result for Aristotle is thinking through the use of reason while for Husserl, it is pure reflection as a result of phenomenology. It is then with utmost importance to first clarify, what does Husserl meant by intellect and Ego. As such, in what process does a person uses his intellect. Furthermore, what is the difference of reflection from pure reflection and of the empirical Ego to the transcendental Ego? Also, one should answer the question â€Å"what is phenomenology? † and â€Å"why it is only through this process one can arrive at pure reflection? † For Husserl, intellect is identical with consciousness as Ego is identical to Self. As such, when one speaks of intellect, one is referring to consciousness and vice-versa. Such is also the case with the Ego and the Self. Reflection is the process wherein one is looking not towards the act of reflection itself but rather in the direction of the objects one is conscious of. As such, one is absorbed in reflecting how these objects exist rather than asking how they come into being or essentially, enquiring on their primordial existence. If the consciousness is moving towards this kind of reflection, then the Ego is only in his/her ontical (empirical) status. Pure reflection, on the other hand, is the process wherein the consciousness is reflecting his consciousness – that is the act of reflection per se. This is the case wherein the Ego transcends from his ontical stage by describing the events i. e. relating, referring, combining, et al in his consciousness. And this can only be done thru the process of phenomenology. What is phenomenology then? Phenomenology is defined as the science of consciousness. (Husserl, p. 5) It is the process of describing the things and events themselves in their primordial sense through the use of phenomenological reduction. Phenomenological reduction then is the process wherein one suspends his/her preconceived notion of things in order to objectively describe the objects and events as what it appears to them. It only thru this process that we can arrive at pure reflection because this is the only method wherein objects and events are describe as themselves without concurring to any established principle or assumption. Evidently, Aristotle’s notion of intellect and Husserl’s notion of Ego posited the strength of mind in general – transcending from space and time. If that is the case, then the conception of a person is not only confined within the physical realm – that is he can do things beyond the limit of his physical existence in his journey to unravel the primordial existence of objects and any discipline for that matter. However, what sets them apart from each other is their notion on how one can really grasp the ontological state of an object or in the words of Kant –their intentionality. Aristotle believed that one can only know the ontological state of a thing by referring to its primary essence, its telos as the context clue in able to grasp the object’s primary essence. For Husserl, on the other hand, it is only through the use of phenomenological method can one comprehend the ontological state of objects. In Being and Time, Heidegger attempted to know the meaning of a Being – that is the Dasein, by starting to ask and redefine the fundamental question of â€Å"What is a Being? † He further continued this method by asking the ontological question of Being – that only a being can know his Being because he is consciousness to his Being by his being. His starting point is the fact that a being is a Being-in-the-World. He is a being situated in this world. As such, it is only him who can know his being by virtue of his ontic-ontological character. If that is the case, then it is only him who can determine his possibilities by virtue of being a spatio-temporal entity. Since no other entities can determine his possibilities as a being conscious of his existence, then the Dasein solely can ascertain his existentiall. It can be deduced then that the task of Dasein is to transcend to his existentiell in order to arrive at his ontological status. He can only do this by maximizing his possibilities to know himself thru the things which are ready-at-hand – things which can help him to reveal his being to him. It should be kept in mind that this process of knowing the Dasein does not go in hermeneutic circles rather on a back and forth condition Dasein as a spatio-temporal entity is facing a hard time to know his being because there is a tendency that he might be too absorb in his world or fall. Yet what Heidegger wants to emphasize is that he as a Dasein should not conceive his being as a spatio-temporal entity an encumbrance to his Being. It is because it is only through this world he can have his possibilities. This separates him from other entities and makes him a Dasein. Evidently, Heidegger’s notion of Dasein greatly gives importance to the relationship of the Being and the world which is also apparent in Aristotle notion of intellect and Husserl’s notion of Ego. However, what separates the former from the latter is that it focused on providing an answer on how one can transcend to his facticity in order to ontologically know his Being. The latter, on the other hand, focuses in discovering the essence and the ontological existence of the objects in the material world. Transcendental phenomenology is defined in general as the study of essence. It designates two things: a new kind of descriptive method which made a breakthrough in philosophy at the turn of the century, and an a priori science derived from it; a science which is intended to supply the basic instrument for a rigorously scientific philosophy and, in its consequent application, to make possible a methodical reform of all the sciences. (Husserl, p. 15) Essentially, transcendental phenomenology then is a description of phenomena. Husserl, then, laid down the method to achieve the objective of reforming all the sciences. The first step is the use of phenomenological epoche or reduction or bracketing wherein one suspends or take away all his/her biases and prejudices in order to â€Å"objectively describe† a phenomena. By doing this, we can arrive at a universal description of a phenomena. This will be followed by the compare and contrast method which one will have to undertake in order to arrive at the pure data of things. It appears then that by suspending one’s judgment and undergoing the intersubjectivity test, we can arrive at the â€Å"pure data of things†. In relation to this, Husserl claims that this method should be followed by all sciences in order to answer their primordial condition. It is held that sciences cannot escape their dogmas because it fails to question how they come to be. What they are just doing is a mere adaptation of established principles proven in the past to be true. Since these established principles were proven in the past to be true, scientists or people who work in the sciences do not make any attempt to further verify the truthfulness of their established principles – that is how and why is it the case that such principles were held to be true. For indisputably, things cannot just come into being without any rationalization, scientific explanation for that matter. Sciences have constructed ready-made answers to all things – their nature, existence, feature, et al; grounded on the preconceived notion that sciences have already provided sufficient answers to the primitiveness of these objects. While sciences are busy in explaining these things [the ready-made answers], they failed to realized that they were not able to arrived at the Isness of these objects, on how they come into being. However, since the sciences had already deceived the people, that in the past, it already provided sufficient answers to the primordial existence of things, it appears then they are seemingly contented and satisfied by what the sciences have achieved. This is what phenomenology wants to deconstruct – it wanted to create a paradigm shift by destroying the â€Å"tradition† institutionalized by science and overcoming relativism and subjectivism by the use of phenomenological reduction. From these, one can arrive at the pure data of consciousness. It is in this sense, that phenomenology becomes transcendental. Phenomenology is different from descriptive psychology because it draws upon pure reflection exclusively, and pure reflection excludes, as such, every type of external experience and therefore precludes any co positing of objects alien to consciousness. (Husserl, p. 7) Descriptive psychology then does not depend upon pure reflection exclusively; it needs psychological experiencing which would result to the reflection of the external experience. As such, consciousness itself becomes something transcendent, becomes an event in that spatial world which appears, by virtue of consciousness, to be transcendent. (Husserl, p. 7) It can be inferred then that phenomenology focuses solely on the consciousness per se of a being making it the science of consciousness while descriptive psychology focuses on the consciousness of a being in his psychic experiences. Transcendental idealism states that everything intuited in space and time, and therefore all objects of any experience possible to us, are nothing but appearances, that is, mere representations which, in the manner in which they are represented, as extended beings or as series of alterations, have no independent existence outside our thoughts. (Kant, p. 1) As such, it posits that one cannot have the knowledge of the realm beyond the empirical – that is one cannot experience objects outside space and time. It is because the mind as Kant argues having certain constraints [in reference to space and time] – can only grasp the noesis of the object but not its noumena – the object’s intentionality. It can be inferred then that transcendental idealism’s fundamental assertions lies on two grounds: first, objects by themselves exudes intentionality; and secondly, we can never know their intentionality [or noumena] because our mind can only grasp the noesis or what is appearing to us. Phenomenology believes on Kant’s first claim that indeed objects have their own intentionality but vies the second assertion. As such, its emergence as a domain of study in philosophy is grounded on its thrust to prove that indeed the mind can know the noumena of objects. Phenomenology believes that this can be done using eidetic reductionism proving to all that the mind can transcend beyond the physical realm – beyond space and time. Essentially, all the philosophies which were tackled in this paper seek to explain and interpret the world – including the objects within it and the beings living in it; from the primordial existence of things up to the authentication of one’s Being.

Faith and Reason in the Enlightenment Essay -- The Enlightenment in Eu

In a time when faith and hard labor kept the majority of society alive, the introduction of reason by the Enlightenment was initially perceived as a threat. People had focused on their faiths and grasped the traditions and rituals of their dogmas. The Enlightenment introduced the possibility of faith and reason coinciding and cooperating to form a more civilized and equal society to replace the Old Regime, and the changes lasted far after the period of the Enlightenment. Leading up to the Enlightenment Prior to the Enlightenment, England and France instituted Old Regime societies in which three distinct classes of people embraced religion as the foundation of their lives. Each caste had a different lifestyle, with the clergy enjoying the upper class, the nobility in the position of influence, and the vast majority of the people trapped in the hardship of the Third Estate. The clergy was different in the Protestant Church than in the Catholic Church because the Catholics had only to obey the Pope while the Protestant Church was run by the monarch. None of the clergy paid many royal taxes, but still owned much of the land. Since the clergy was a high class, it was beneficial for some of the offspring of the nobility to join the clergy in order to receive higher status. The nobility as a whole controlled much money and power while maintaining constant struggle with the crown over governmental power. The Third Estate worked to live and had no freedom except for their religious beliefs. They believed that they were at the mercy of the land and of an overpowering Creator. The Old Regime was characterized in large part by conflicts between countries and within countries over religious matters. It w... ...ove their minds. European society that was once stuck in the Old Regime lifestyle grew in many facets with the introduction of reason and enlightenment. Although initially reluctant, the societies of the Old Regime embraced the thoughts of the Enlightenment, the conflict between faith and reason began to subside as people learned that they could practice both. References 1 Donald Kagan. The Western Heritage Brief Edition:Volume II Since 1648. (Upper Saddle River: Pretence Hall, 1999), 313. 2 Kagan 298 3 Perry Rogers. Aspects of Western Civilization: Problems and Sources in History 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pretence Hall, 1997), 12. 4 Rogers, 15. 5 Kagan, 317. 6 Peter Gay. Age of Enlightenment. (New York: Time Life Books, 1966), 32. 7 Kagan, 402. 8 Kagan, 329. 9 Gay, 56. 10 Gay, 54. 11 Rogers, 102.

Americas Zoos: Entertainment To Conservation Essay -- essays research

America's Zoos: Entertainment to Conservation   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The children run ahead, squealing with delight. Their parents lag behind holding the children's brightly colored balloons and carrying the remnants of the half-eaten cotton candy. The family stops to let the children ride the minitrain and take pictures together under the tree. They walk hand- in-hand toward the exit, stopping first at the gift shop where they each splurge on a treat to remind them of the day's adventure. Although this may sound like a typical scene from the local amusement park, it's actually the city zoo. All that forgotten was walking from cage to cage watching the anxious animals pace back and forth in their closed-in prisons (Hope, 1994). Their cages feel cold and desolate. The concrete floor provides no warmth and the atmosphere is sterile. The animals do not appear very happy in this closed-in environment. Just who are these anxious animals? They are the common everyday animals any child could name: the bears, the tigers, the elephants and the monkeys. What about the rest of the world's unique creatures? Hundreds of species are endanger of becoming extinct, and conservation is in need. Extinction is a permanent issue. The treatment of all our animals and their rights is important as well. As concern for the world's animals becomes more prominent in the news, our zoos rise up to meet the challenge. Animal's rights and their treatment, regardless of species, have been brought to attention and positive movements made. While the number of endangered species grows, zoos attempt to do their part in conservation. Both in and out of the park, zoos and their scientist do their best to help these species. Efforts out in the field within the United States as well as other countries are currently in progress. The question lies in the worthiness of these efforts. Is the conservation successful? Are these efforts being done for the right reasons? Will zoos remain as a form of family entertainment or will the enjoyment of the patrons become unimportant? While it is obvious that things are changing, the eventual goals might not be so clear. As the concern shifts from entertainment to conservation, the zoo's efforts are examined, both in the park and beyond, and their motives judged.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As cities became more and more urbanized, it was harder to st... ...zations on my own, imagine how much more knowledgeable the public will be as a whole on these matters. Both education and species conservation are gained. Honestly, many members of the human population may not realize what life is truly like out in the wild. Nature has been difficult for many animals and these scientists are trying to rebuild what Mother Nature, in combination with the human race, has almost destroyed. The role has shifted, but I believe that the motives have also changed considerably. The concern of the patrons will always be a factor, but with so many people worried about the animals, they are not forgotten. Perhaps if the general public, meaning those who do not have the privilege of visiting these zoos becomes more informed about the work, less questions will be raised about this transition. Personally, I cannot differentiate the one who suffers in this arrangement. The animals' rights are looked after, the public becomes more aware and the endangered numbers of many species are strengthened. If the children still squeal, the animals are safe and measures are being taken to help Earth's creatures, I would consider the venture successful and applaud it as well.

Lyndall Urwicks 10 Principles to Management Essay

Lyndall Urwick has been prolific and an enthusiastic writer on the subject of administration and management. His experience covered industry, the armed forces and business consultancy. Like other classical writers, Urwick developed his ‘principle’ on the basis of his own interpretation of the common elements and processes, which he identified in the structure, and operation of organization. In 1952 he produced a consolidated list of ten principles in administration and management. Urwick’s ideas in general were popular because of their commonsense appeal to managers in organization. In the last decade, however Urwick’s emphasis on purpose and structure has not been able to provide answers to problems arising from social changes and needed for organizational health. Nevertheless his influence on many modern businesses has been enormous. Lyndall Urwick Urwick was born in England in 1891. He attended Repton and New College, Oxford, and was awarded a B.A. degree in 1913 and a M.A.degree in 1919. He began his career in his family’s glove manufacturing business, Fownes Brothers and Company. Following service in the First World War, he became organizing secretary for Rowntree and Company, a confectioner. He subsequently moved to the position of administrator of the Management Research Groups and then became Director of the International management Institute in Geneva in 1929. When thereat Depression cut short the life of the institute, Urwick returned to England and established the management consultancy; Urwick, Orr and Patterns. 10 Principles Urwick 10 principles are: 1. The principles of objective – the overall purpose or objective is the raison d’à ªtre of every organization. 2. The principles of specialization – one group, one function. 3. The principles of coordination – the process of organizing is primarily to ensure coordination. 4. The principles of authority-every group should have a supreme authority with clear line of authority to other members of the group. 5. The principles of responsibility – the superior is absolutely responsible  for the acts of his subordinates. 6. The principles of definitions – jobs, with their duties and relationships, should be clear defined. 7. The principles of correspondence – authority should be commensurate with responsibility. 8. The span of control – no one should be responsible for more than 5 – 6 direct subordinates whose work is interlocked. 9. The principles of balance – the various units of the organization should be kept in balance. 10. The principles of continuity – the structure should provide for the continuity of activities

Saddam Husein essays

Saddam Husein essays Saddam Hussein was born on April 28, 1937 in the Tikrit District of Iraq. Soon after he was born into a poor family, his father abandoned them. Saddams mother remarried and he was frequently beaten by his stepfather. At the age of 10, Saddam left home with his uncle, Khrairallah Tulfah, who was his mothers brother and headed for the capital of Baghdad. His uncle, a schoolteacher, had a great influence on his early life. According to MTV.com, Hussein, 22, made his mark on the Iraqi political scene in 1959 when he attempted to assassinate the countries prime minister. He was unsuccessful and was shot in the leg during the endeavor. In 1963, Saddam married his cousin, Sajida. Saddam has two sons that are being groomed to replace him when he dies or steps down. At Saddams direction, his sons have assumed increasingly prominent roles, creating a widespread but unspoken belief that hell eventually designate one as his political heir. But which one? Uday, 36, who has a reputation as a womanizer with a violent temper, seemed a strong candidate before he was badly injured in 1996 by attackers who raked him and his red Porsche with automatic gunfire on a Baghdad street. Qusai, 34, who is so low-key that most Iraqis wouldnt recognize him, now holds far more important posts. He runs the Republican Guards, the countrys best-trained and equipped troops, and handles the elite Special Security Organization that protects his father. Saddam wants to keep power in the family, rather than allow it to pass to his Baath Party. Qusai, with his leading role in the security forces, has the upper hand, though Saddam hasnt explicitly revealed his choice. (msnbc.com) By all accounts, the sons inherited ambition and ruthlessness from their father, though Uday and Qusais public personalities are total opposites. Saddam had two son-in-laws, Hussein Kamel Majid ...

Free Essays on Religions In America

In the American society today there is a mix of all different religions. Today America’s religion is pluralistic meaning just that. There are a whole bunch of religions practiced in the same society. All of the combined dimensions of religious freedom contribute to the diversity of religious belief and expression in the U.S. There are a bunch of different religions, and three major religions in America today are Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These three religions have played a major role in shaping American culture, and way of life. Throughout history Jewish people have combined ordinary and extraordinary religion in basically the same way Native Americans have blended community life, religious practice, and relationships with the natural, social and political world. This mixing of the elements of extraordinary and ordinary religion has resulted in the upholding of a unique Jewish identity. Although subject to the influence of various cultures surrounding groups of Jews, this has set them apart in many countries and cultures. There are four different types of Jews in America today they are Orthodox Jews, who follow basically everything the old ancient ways, and the Conservative Jews who practice Pantheism (which means God is present in all things). There are also the Hasidic Jews and the Reform Jews. All of these different groups practice their own different thing and when they cam to America they had their ideas passed along throughout our culture. We see this everyday even when we walk down the streets. They are families of Jews just walking to their Sunday function, with their yam micas on. They won’t really use any electricity or cars or any modern technology on this day. If we go to the supermarket we see food that is marked kosher for them. So that they know the food is alright to eat for their way of life. All of these little things add up and give them a little place they have built in our American culture.... Free Essays on Religions In America Free Essays on Religions In America In the American society today there is a mix of all different religions. Today America’s religion is pluralistic meaning just that. There are a whole bunch of religions practiced in the same society. All of the combined dimensions of religious freedom contribute to the diversity of religious belief and expression in the U.S. There are a bunch of different religions, and three major religions in America today are Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These three religions have played a major role in shaping American culture, and way of life. Throughout history Jewish people have combined ordinary and extraordinary religion in basically the same way Native Americans have blended community life, religious practice, and relationships with the natural, social and political world. This mixing of the elements of extraordinary and ordinary religion has resulted in the upholding of a unique Jewish identity. Although subject to the influence of various cultures surrounding groups of Jews, this has set them apart in many countries and cultures. There are four different types of Jews in America today they are Orthodox Jews, who follow basically everything the old ancient ways, and the Conservative Jews who practice Pantheism (which means God is present in all things). There are also the Hasidic Jews and the Reform Jews. All of these different groups practice their own different thing and when they cam to America they had their ideas passed along throughout our culture. We see this everyday even when we walk down the streets. They are families of Jews just walking to their Sunday function, with their yam micas on. They won’t really use any electricity or cars or any modern technology on this day. If we go to the supermarket we see food that is marked kosher for them. So that they know the food is alright to eat for their way of life. All of these little things add up and give them a little place they have built in our American culture....