Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression Essay Example

Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression Paper The evolutionary view states that all aggressive behavior is a product of genetic programming and inheritance. Every individual is genetically programmed to maximize their fitness. There are two ways 1) reproducing and generating 2) by avoiding predation or by being successful predator.  There are many types of aggression. Male on female aggression – the men uses the violence to keep the women faithful to him. Miller study show that 55 % of battered wives perceived jealousy as reason for husband’s behaviour. The implication is that 45% of women reported that there was no jealousy so other factor must contribute. This explanation is reductionist , because it assumes that there is only one cause. Shackeford investigated the relationship between a women’s age , her husband’s age and the risk that he will murder het. This study found that older man are more likely to kill the younger women. The implication of this is that younger women are more fertile therefore more desirable. From evolutionary theory point of view this iis a product of men’s evolved sexual proprietaries. A second evolutionary explanation of human aggression is the evolution of homicide. One cause of aggression could be a lack of resources. Daly and Wilson carried out a study in Brazil and found that approximately 40% of victims and killers were men that were unemployed and around 70% of male victims and killers were not married. So, the inability to attract a long term partner and a lack of resources appears to lead to social competition and therefore aggression. We will write a custom essay sample on Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer A second cause of aggression could be status. In the EEA, we used to live in small groups and status was very important. A loss of status could have had catastrophic results on reproductive potential and resources. Although this is not the case now, the gene may still exist, so there has been a genome lag which is causing aggression in humans.  However, human aggression focuses too much on the male aspect. Society has changed and therefore the evolutionary explanation may not seem to be as relevant in modern day society. This explanation could be seen as reductionist because it doesn’t explain how females act when they feel jealous. It emphasizes the aggression of men , but does not discuss female aggression in detail.  The methodology of the research can be questioned. As questionnaires and surveys were used, the participants may not always speak the truth. Some may lie to avoid confrontation from their partner. They may receive further abuse from male if he finds out. This explanation of human aggression may not always explain cultural differences. Some cultures do not feel the need of being aggressive and therefore don’t show signs of human aggression. Whilst other cultures may believe being violent can help a male feel dominant.  Therefore, the results cannot be applied to all cultures so not generalisable due to cultural differences that arises between different cultures and countries. The evolutionary explanation can explain why individuals tend to show signs of aggression, this can help people who may feel that another individual is in an aggressive relationship by showing signs highlighted by the male, of an aggressive manner. So the explanation can be applied to real life, and help women in aggressive relationships, who receive violent abuse from males.  Homicide doesn’t have much adaptive value. Duntley and Buss say that once anti-homicide defences begin to evolve, homicide becomes a far more costly strategy to pursue. As a result of this, the evidence is supported that homicide is a extreme form of aggression, but not an adaptive response to dealing with the problem in question. Evolutionary explanation is a nature theory because whole process is driven by evolution. We could argue that it is deterministic because our behaviour is determine by evolution. It is reductionist , because it seems to explain all behaviour as maximising fitness. On the other side it is not completely reductionist because it have more than one explanation of aggression; male on famele, jealousy. There is no many cross cultural research . However this theory expect that there are no cross cultural difference. The implication of this is that culture is reflection of evolution. From the psychodynamic point of view there may be conflict between id and ego. This explanation appears to be scientific, because it talks about gene, but do not specify the gene. Some people claims that this theory is not scientific approach as it is non-flausible. Something that cannot be proven is not scientific.

The Misdemeanors of Well-Educated People in Public Office

The Misdemeanors of Well-Educated People in Public Office One of the most important benefits of education is a virtue, a desirable quality of a leader that well-educated Philippine President Benigno Aquino Jr. failed to demonstrate to his people. Hashtag: #NasaanAngPangulo The Cause and Effect of Educated Leader’s Mixed-up Priorities One of the most important benefits of education is a  virtue, a desirable quality of a leader that well-educated Philippine President Benigno Aquino Jr. failed to demonstrate to his people. The Commander-in-Chief of the Philippine armed forces was absent during the welcome honors ceremony for the 42 brave SAF Commandos who were massacred by members of MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) in Maguindanao, a province South of the Philippines. In grief, the families and relatives of these fallen heroes who were in need of their President’s support and encouragement were left alone and crying #NasaanAngPangulo (Where is the president?). HOW IS  HUMAN DIGNITY VALUED IN THE ACADEMIC SPHERE? Many Filipinos were disillusioned by their President’s lack of compassion and openly expressing their sentiments and criticism through Twitter and other social networking websites. These reactions are mainly focused on President Aquino’s misdemeanor as an educated public servant with mixed-up priorities and reluctance of Malacanang Palace staff to answer public inquiries such as #NasaanAngPangulo or the president’s whereabouts. A Filipino social media user criticized and described their President as a student who was absent during final exam but hopeful to pass the class. In essence, the act of supporting and uplifting the spirit of those who lost their loved ones critically test the extent of a leader’s education and virtue. However, President Aquino failed to take the test, as he was somewhere else minding his other priorities and completely confident on the morality of his political decision. A Filipina lawmaker and a known critic of people in government, on the other hand, hinted about Mr. Aquino’s priorities, when she wittingly blamed Mr. Aquino’s disoriented social priorities on car shows. Another concerned Filipino social media user sharply criticized the conduct of well-educated and intelligent Presidential Staff who conspired and concealed the truth. In this user’s opinion, the staff, in the process of concealing the whereabouts of their beloved president made a mockery of their academic achievement along with the virtues learned from school. Education and Public Expectations The above incident is not only illustrative of the alarming consequence of electing a public official with muddled priorities but also the reality of public’s high regard to education and behavioral expectations on educated individuals. It is quite clear from the public reactions and criticisms that most people see education as both providers of knowledge and developer of virtues or socially desirable behaviors among students. This, in reality, is the academic knowledge that most people believed the educated individual has and being applied not only at work or in pursuing a better life but also in appreciating the needs of others, making equitable decisions, and in recognizing the right priorities. THE VALUE OF ACADEMIC DEBATE The question posed by the mournful families of the fallen heroes’ such as #NasaanAngPangulo, was never meant to satisfy their curiosity on his whereabouts but seeking justice and compassion from an elected leader whom they perceived as intelligent, virtuous, and powerful enough to alleviate their sufferings. However, their expectations were wrong, as the facts about the man they want to see and confide with are even more disheartening. It probably formed an enduring memory of people in government that are unappreciative of the 42 policemen’s heroic deeds, numb and unsympathetic of other people’s feelings and needs, incapable of distinguishing genuine priorities, and a President who actually went to a Mitsubishi plant inauguration instead of solemnly welcoming the remains of their loved ones.

Debate on the causes of global warming Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Debate on the causes of global warming - Essay Example While a dialectic method is used, it is used poorly, and there are almost no attempts at synthesis. The main topoi used by all sides are scientific data, but they are used poorly. There are three separate arguments made in the debate. One group of scientists claims that global warming is not occurring, another group claims that global warming is occurring because of natural changes in the earth's climate such as an increase in the level of solar radiation reaching the earth or changes in the patterns of winds, ocean currents, or volcanic activity, and another group claims that global warming is occurring because of an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the large scale combustion of fossil fuels by humans that started during the time of the first industrial revolution and continues up to the present day. There are several different types of arguments used by scientists that deny the existence of global warming. The three main scientific arguments used by that side of the debate are claims that temperatures in the upper atmosphere have fallen in the last few decades, an argument that meteorological data from the last century is inaccurate because of the heat island effect, and a claim that differences in the way that average temperature is measured today cause average temperatures today to appear higher than they were in earlier decades. The claim that the temperatures in the upper atmosphere have fallen in the last few decades is the weakest of the three because there is no scientific proof that temperatures in the upper atmosphere have any correlation with ground temperatures. The temperature data was also slightly modified for scientific reasons in the survey, and scientists who claim that global warming is happening say that it was modified incorrectly. The argument that the heat island effect; or the effect of thermometers in weather stations being in highly developed areas where there are many heat-retaining ground coverings, such as buildings, concrete, and asphalt; is the cause of the observed rise in temperatures is a better argument, but there have been no attempts to analyze the effects of increasing urbanization quantitatively or show the exact levels of new development around each weather station. The claim that average temperatures appear higher because temperatures are now taken four times each day instead of twice is an even better argument, because the temperatures taken at the two other times are usually closer to the daily high than the daily low, and that causes the average daily temperature for each day to appear higher. However, it has been claimed that average highs and average lows have both risen in the past few decades, making this argument seem less convincing. Nonscientific arguments made by scientists and others that claim that glob al warming is not occurring include an argument that there is a global conspiracy against capitalism or the United States by socialists or internationalists using environmental junk science and the argument that most environmentalist scientists thought that there was a pattern of global cooling and the risk of a new ice age in the 1970s. Both arguments are ad hominem attacks. While many of the scientists that support the theory of human-caused Global Warming are extreme environmentalists, there is

Death Penalty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Death Penalty - Essay Example The death penalty should not be used for the mentally ill or youths under the age of 18. Circumstances surrounding each individual case also need to be determined. The most important issue concerning the death penalty is the debate. This issue is far from settled either legally or socially in the United States. Many myths surround the death penalty. â€Å"Among the myths surrounding the death penalty are that it deters violent crime, that it costs less than life imprisonment, that victims’ families demand it, and that organized religion justifies and supports its use† (Catron and Stein-Holmes n.d.:4). If a murderer wants to commit a crime, their main thought is not about the death penalty. If this were the case, states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia would see a decrease in capital offences. Timothy McVeigh would have blown up a Federal building in Iowa, not Oklahoma City. Murderers do not have the morals that a rational law abiding citizen have, which makes them think differently. The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crime. Although deterrent hypothesis still exist, they are only a hypothesis (Cloninger and Marchensini 2005:3). Research has not definitely proven the death penalty as a deterrent (Cloninger and Marchensini 2005:3). Another myth is the death pe nalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment (Schaefer 2008:177). Another myth debunked is all families request the death penalty. Some family members do not want the death penalty. Finally not all religions demand the death penalty. An example of an anti-death penalty church is the Catholic Church. These myths should not be used to argue for the death penalty. The United States is the last Western country to implement the death penalty (Catron and Stein-Holmes n.d.:4). Of all execution reported, 92% happened in the United States (36 states/military/Federal government), China, Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan (Schaefer

Implications of Clonal Genome Evolution for Cancer Medicine Essay

Implications of Clonal Genome Evolution for Cancer Medicine - Essay Example In addition, the authors show their level of knowledge of the topic at hand in that it is pretty fluent going by the information presented in the past, present and future application of genetics in the treatment of cancer. The above implies that the authors have a huge bank of knowledge of the issue. This is a fact that is difficult to refute as even the terms applied in the article only ooze competence in the field by even the comparisons made between certain aspects of cells as found in the research work. Such a thing can only be done by a person with adequate knowledge on the issues at hand, and not anyone who thinks they have adequate information on the topic, which is the case with this article. In order to appeal to the emotions of the audience, the authors apply a number of strategies that come in handy to content delivery. As such, the authors apply facts and the informative nature of the article to appeal to the audience in that, by being based on a science subject, it bring s forth information directly. In relation to this, the article does not leave the audience to seek the important point for themselves but instead, contains every kind of information that the audience would need to comprehend. The pathos of the article begins with the direct statement of the motive or goals of the article and graduates to the evolution of cancer, which is presented with facts about evolutionism, and then goes further to make deductions of the implications of the history to modern times.... th a strong sense of authority in genetics based on the lingo applied to deliver the content, which is a non-hesitant flow of word after word, which all show how much interest the author has. As such, the authors express their interest in the issue following the efforts that have been made in the field of medicine in order to inch closer to some form of treatment and understanding of cancer and its implications. With this in mind, the article shows how much the authors have gone through in order to deliver the content, which is further proof of their vested interest in the subject of evolution and cancer for the audience to pay attention. In addition, the authors show their level of knowledge of the topic at hand in that it is pretty fluent going by the information presented on the past, present and future application of genetics in the treatment of cancer. The above implies that the authors have a huge bank of knowledge of the issue. This is a fact that is difficult to refute as eve n the terms applied in the article only ooze competence in the field by even the comparisons made between certain aspects of cells as found in the research work. Such a thing can only be done by a person with adequate knowledge on the issues at hand, and not anyone who thinks they have adequate information on the topic, which is the case with this article. In order to appeal to the emotions of the audience, the authors apply a number of strategies that come in handy to content delivery. As such, the authors apply facts and the informative nature of the article to appeal to the audience in that, by being based on a science subject, it brings forth information directly. In relation to this, the article does not leave the audience to seek the important point for themselves but instead,

Essence Of Decision A Review Politics Essay

Essence Of Decision A Review Politics Essay Graham Allisons Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the models strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis. In Essence of Decision, Allison proposes three different lenses that offers a multi-level analysis rather than a regular solely system-level to analyse foreign policy decision making. His first model, Unitary Government Model or Rational Actor Model (RAM) explain government as a black box, thus the internal actors have the same goals and opinion on how to achieve the goal. On the other hand, model II and model III will open the black box and discuss at two different things inside the box and later known as bureaucratic politics model. Model II or Organizational Process Model looks at the key organizational or agencies with their own function, mission and structure. Lastly, Model III or Governmental Politics Model will focus on key individual decision makers and the political bargaining process among them. Nonetheless, Allisons conceptual framework has been not only highly praised by foreign policy analysts, but also has been much criticised since its first edition. Number of criticism has risen regarding Allisons conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Conford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allisons model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allisons model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis. This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allisons conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allisons Essence of Decision, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Allisons Conceptual Framework Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM) Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in states action. The model reduces the organizational and governmental political complications by looking at government as unified actor.  [1]  Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as black box- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate the potential pro and con and later rank all the options by their chance to succeed.  [2]   Its feature of being easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Therefore, since it does not require information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suits in a crisis situation. It would safe more time since a state does not necessary do a complex evaluation about their enemy. Lastly, RAM that stresses interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process. On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually give a big impact. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives.  [3]  Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are very importantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model.  [4]   Model II: Organizational Process Difficulties will arise when the case that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III. Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme.  [5]  Each organization has an agreement for both its mission and function. Afterward, series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II argues that it is restricted based on SOP that will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors. Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, makes number of advantage from this model. It emphasizes the important domestic political influences on process of foreign policy decision making that sometimes missed out from RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization.  [6]   Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analysts understanding of organizations and their behaviour.  [7]  Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model. Model III: Governmental Politics Governmental politics model or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational actor. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (where you stand depends on where you sit). Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision. Between Allisons three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III not only explains the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective. Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside. Criticism toward Allisons conceptual framework Allisons conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allisons model à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is misleading, dangerous, and compelling.  [8]  Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allisons model will be critically discussed and assessed. Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art claimed that Allison did not present a pure brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Conford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March.  [9]  Furthermore, Conford has claimed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Model IIIà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is pure Neustadt.  [10]  Horelick et al.  [11]  supported Confords argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists.  [12]  Ball and Art  [13]  also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt.  [14]   Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilizes and developed earlier scholars work as he mentioned in his book, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this encourages much repackaging of existing theoriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [15]  Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II.  [16]  Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.  [17]  Hence, we could argue that Allisons originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  [18]   Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM.  [19]  As Conford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process.  [20]  Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application. In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model.  [21]   However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics models major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model.  [22]   Allisons alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.  [23]  The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.  [24]  In contrast, Smith argues that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this criticism is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carried out.  [25]  Therefore, the criticism from Ste el and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified. Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allisons model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Unions policy making)  [26]  , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is a growing consensusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.  [27]  Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process.  [28]  Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allisons model is not a universal model and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.  [ 29]  Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis. As Weil notes that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.  [30]   Nevertheless, analists argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party.  [31]  Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allisons model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the extension of Allisons model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies.  [32]   Singapores defence posture change in the early 1980s In the early 1980s, Singapore announces a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (poisonous shrimp) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the porcupine). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allisons model to analyse Singapores domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapores ruling party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III.  [33]  The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapores defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change. Model II first reveals the appropriate development of both Singapores military capability and military planni ng ability. Furthermore, model III then prove details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat.  [34]  Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allisons model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Furthermore, the case study of Singapores policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM, namely, the bureaucratic politic model. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allisons models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate. The utility of Allisons model also can be tested in the US foreign policy in Iran hostage crisis in 1979. The bureaucratic politics model is applicable in analysing the decision making process under President Carter administration. The key group in Carters government consisted of number individual who have important position in the executive branch, and also political outsiders that rarely well known, yet have close personal relations to the President. Within the key group that were known as the Georgia mafia, there are two closest advisors for the President; the chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan and Carters press secretary, Jody Powell. Even though these two advisors are not familiar in politic and foreign policy process, they were loyal and intelligent. When sixty American were taken hostage at the American embassy in Iran on 4 November 1979, the initial response from Carter is criticised to be quite slow. On 11 November, the US gave economy sanction by initiating embargo of Iranian oil. While the economy sanction was undertaken, there were ongoing debates about the next step dealing with the crisis. There were two major options; a commando raid to rescue hostages and outright air strikes and military blockades.  [35]  Here we can clearly see how each faction in the government has their own argument to propose to the President is clearly explained by Allisons bureaucratic politics model. A strong debate was occurred between Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance; National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzenzinsky and Carters inner circle, Powell and Jordan. Vance was explicitly being in opposition to any military action after considering that American allies would not tolerate such behaviour. Therefore, he believed that the national security of the US could be maintained without endangering the lives of sixty American citizens.  [36]  On the other side, Brzezinsky strongly opposed military measure as the best means to protect Americas vital interests.  [37]  Moreover, the argument was supported by the director of the CIA, Stanfield Turner, after considering the CIAs best estimates that 60 percent of the hostages could be killed as a result of very complex rescue process. These two faction also argued that they are responsible for the national security, roughly 250 million Americans, and they couldnt simply compromised for the sake of sixty hostages. The final faction c ame from Carters inner circle, including Powell and Jordan, who were concern about the impact of Iran hostage crisis on upcoming election in 1981. The President concurred Vances opinion that a negotiated settlement would be the best for maintaining both national interest and national security. As the response of Carters decision, he received public support, which is important for the upcoming election. However, after considering the effectiveness of the plan, Powell and Jordan opposed the President for tough action against Iranians, again, in order to win the election. In the end, with strong pressure from some faction and absence of Vance in decision making process at the time, Carter called for an immediate military rescues on April 11. The military rescue plan ended in failure with crash of number of helicopters and planes; and killing eight US servicemen. Finally, in 1981s election, Reagan came into power and selesai lah sudah This illustrates the absence of one faction who opposes one specific argument could impact the decision making process as a whole.

David Thoreau Civil Disobedience

Ricardo Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience Throughout history the government’s gained too much power are likely to be corrupt. It is up to citizens to go against government and get rid of any negativity. In order to change the government citizens should vote for an individual who can change the country in a positive way. Henry David Thoreau was a philosopher, observer, and writer best known for his attacks on American social institutions and his respect for nature and simple living. He believed in civil disobedience in order to disagree with government rules.Henry David Thoreau was not like the average American because he was not materialistic which is shown in his  free thought, importance of nature, and self-reliance toward the government. Thoreau kept a journal as a source for his published writings and lectures. He was a very motivated writer and habituary classics such as Greek, Latin and English texts. He also read sacred writing of the Hindus that was a big influe nce on cosmic vision in Walden. Thoreau starts to question authority in Walden. Thoreau spent his night in local jail in a protest against the proslavery agenda of the war against Mexico; he refused to pay his poll tax. The experience would inspire resistance to civil government, at a later time this could be a major debate on relationship of the individual to the state† (Thoreau 827). He believed in nonviolence ideals and was thrown in jail for being against the law and not paying taxes. For example, Mahatma Gandhi led Indians to protest against the salt tax in order to achieve independence against the British.Thoreau’s views on civil disobedience influenced the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Civil disobedience was an act of willful resistance and it is the duty of all American citizens. Martin Luther King uses Thoreau’s strategy in order to not obey the law as he wanted to end racial inequality in America. He criticizes American social institution and poli cies such as slavery. In order to resolve conflicts Thoreau insisted that all principled action had to be undertaken by the individual rather than through groups. When the government is unjust people should refuse to follow the law and stay away from it at all cost.American government is unjust for the practice of aggressive war and supporting slavery. Thoreau explains the differences between social classes in American society. Henry Thoreau likens Americans to horses and dogs. They are commonly esteemed good citizens. However, legislator, lawyers, ministers do not make moral distinction and serve the devil, and do not rely on God. Thoreau suggested to readers â€Å"A wise man will only be useful as a man and will not submit to be clay but leave that office to his dust. He who gives himself to his fellow men appears as useless and selfish.He who gives himself partially to them is a philanthropist† (Thoreau 831). At that time government was devious and they started trading sla ves. This shows that an honest man needs to rebel against government and stand up for themselves. As evidence Thoreau mentions that he did not pay any poll-tax for six years. He was thrown to jail for one night. The state will force him to obey the law, punish is body, and to think like them. Thoreau defends his lifestyle and mentions that he is a sojourner in civilized life. He tells the reader that he does charity to help poor students in school.When release from prison he starts to pay his taxes to support students who are going to school. Old people do not have any important advice to tell young generations. They faced many failures in their lives. Throughout the years dressing in this country was a dignity of art. Sailors make shift to wear clothing and every generation laughs at old fashions and tries on the new one. The factory system is best way for men to get clothing. The industry grows as more people buy clothes. According to Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel are the basi c survival tool for people.Thoreau wanted to build his own house by Walden Ponds — He went for days cutting and hewing timber to design the size of the house. By April the house was framed and all set up and bought shanty of James Collins. Collins was an Irishman who worked on Fitchburg Railroad for boards. He had a roof, good window, and walls in the house. Thoreau paid him 4 dollars and 25 cents for Collins to take possession of the house and to not sell it to anyone else. Seeley was another Irishman who represents spectatordom and help with the removal of the Gods of Troy.If a student wishes to shelter he can rent annually to have a place in his house. Thoreau started planting eleven acres of potatoes, corn, peas, and turnips in order to pay unusual expenses while building his house. He made more money than any farmer in Concord at that time. He realized that it would be problem to obtain food such as animal as a source of health and strength. People should life free and u ncommitted in order to appreciate your farm. Thoreau’s explained citizen to work on your farm until death and not to do farming and quit at some point. If men would steadily observe realities only and not allow themselves to be deluded life to compare it with such things. People should respect music and poetry. Men establish and confirm daily life of routine and habit everywhere which is built in illusionary foundations† (Thoreau 895). He is basically saying that people should start to be nicer to others, appreciate poetry, and to stay from things that are useless for the future. Henry David Thoreau was not like the average American because he was not materialistic which is shown in his  free thought, importance of nature, and self-reliance toward the government.Since he kept a journal as a source for his published writings and lectures. Thoreau’s views on civil disobedience influence the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He also explains the differences betw een social classes in American society. He defends his lifestyle and mentions that he is a sojourner in civilized life. Last, he explains food, shelter, clothing, and fuel are the basic survival tool for people. If people work, and put their mind together they can achieve a balance society where people can be happy.