life during wartime :: essays research papers

There’s nothing I can say about the parade of still pictures, the faces on the television – except, perhaps, that they all seemed to share a fierce pride in their eyes, photographed for the first time in their Marine Dress Blues. Surely their families are proud of them. I certainly am, and I never got to know any of them. And now, I never will. Names scroll in little yellow letters across the bottom of our glowing screens: Sergeants, and Captains, and Privates. These men have died for us. More will follow. We asked them to go, and they went. All across this nation -- here and there, sparkling across the map like fireflies on a summer night – sedans are slowly rolling to a stop outside of small, modest homes. Men in uniform emerge, straighten their tunics, and walk slowly up driveways. Doorbells are rung. Maybe here and there smiles will evaporate in shock and surprise as doors are opened, but more likely the face will be one full of stunned realization that the very worst thing in the whole world has happened. And children will be sent to their rooms. And the men will speak in somber, respectful tones. And sons and mothers and fathers and wives will be told that the one thing they love more than anything in this world has been taken away from them, that their sons and daughters will not be coming home, that their fathers or mothers have gone away and will never come back, not ever. Why do we do this? What could possibly be worth this? The war is an abject and utter failure. What everyone thought would be a quick, decisive victory has turned into an embarrassing series of reversals. The enemy, -- a ragtag, badly-fed collection of hotheads and fanatics – has failed to be shocked and awed by the most magnificent military machine ever fielded. Their dogged resistance has shown us the futility of the idea that a nation of millions could ever be subjugated and administered, no matter what obscene price we are willing to pay in blood and money. The President of the United States is a buffoon, an idiot, a man barely able to speak the English language. His vice president is a little-seen, widely despised enigma and his chief military advisor a wild-eyed warmonger. Only his Secretary of State offers any hope of redemption, for he at least is a reasonable, well-educated man, a man most thought would have made a far, far better choice for Chief Executive.

English Language Essay on Spoken Text

Text B is an interview on television show conducted by two presenters with the purpose being to conceive as much information as they can from J. K. Rowling, a famous author on her newest Harry Potter book. The audience here would predominantly be avid young readers of the book who want to know about the book and regular followers of the show. The dominant speaker in this text B would be the interviewers and the chat show is based on adjacency pairs.Using a false-start and contradiction in â€Å"no, I don’t – yes I do† illustrate aspects of spoken language although there are clear elements where the audience might know the interviewers had a basic idea of what was to be asked before-hand. The lack of non-fluency features more clearly suggest the questions were previously prepared, for example, when Richard says â€Å"All the papers that have been promoting this interview today clearly want us†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This tells us research was undertaken on what sort of que stions the audience or readers wanted answered.The change of tone at the end of a sentence suggests spontaneity and cues the other speaker’s turn to speak. For example, â€Å"But of course the last one at the moment is residing in your safe†, portrays the change in tone at the end. Judy, the interviewer used more interrogatives like â€Å"two much loved ones? † while Richard uses ellipsis to try and create spontaneity and confidence, â€Å"you told your husband, obviously you confide in him all things†¦Ã¢â‚¬  allowing turn-taking.The interviewee also seems a little uninterested through her short answers such as â€Å"He did one of the, yeah†; to perhaps show she isn’t in the mood or the fact she’s trying to be careful so as to not reveal any information thus considering her words. Text C is a play script from American Buffalo by David Mamet, with the purpose primarily being to entertain. The audience here would be predominantly educat ed theatre going audience.The play script is structurally organized through the use of adjacency pairs, with interrogatives being a main aspect. Don is portrayed as the dominant speaker as he controls the conversation and asserts his position through speech. Don’s speech is also longer and more authorative to further portray his higher status than Bob. The use of turn-taking and the informal setting gives way to colloquialism such as â€Å"well she was real mad at him†, â€Å"jewed† and â€Å"yup†.Don also uses â€Å"Bobby† to show familiarity with the other character as well as it being a little patronizing to represent their distinctive positions and relationship. Don also instigates topic shifts structurally as he tries to teach Bob about business, â€Å"Things are not always what they seem to be†, shows how a cliche to perhaps portray Don’s maturity and wisdom in comparison to the youth and naivety of Bob.

Multicultural Britain Essay

My task is to explain why people chose to immigrate to Britain, with reference to the period 1880 to the present day. Britain has been Multicultural for hundreds of years. There are the diverse cultures and languages of the people of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England. Britain’s links with the commonwealth countries of the Caribbean, Anglophone Africa, Cyprus, Australia, New Zealand and the Indian subcontinent were established through trade and subsequent conquest and colonization. Around five per cent of Britain’s present population are from ethnic minorities. â€Å"Multicultural† can be a controversial term, associated with various ideas about racial and cultural identities, cultural, diversity and difference, and policies and practices in schools and local government authorities. Since ancient times people have been moving to Britain and settling there. These immigrants have all made a change to Britain as a whole. There are many reasons for immigration, some of which being wars, famine, draught, economic changes, lack of facilities, religious restraints, prejudice, discrimination or even as refugees. Since the seventeenth century Jews had lived in Britain and had soon become a vital part of British life, including the social, political and economic life of Britain. Throughout the nineteenth century a minority of Jews continued to migrate to Britain, with many Jews even being born there. However after the welcoming of 1880, the minority of Jews already living there (Anglo-Jewish) experienced a sudden flood of Jews into Britain. In 1881 the Russian Jews were held responsible for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. Many Jews now became certain that it was time to leave and start a new life in a Western country. Many moved to Britain knowingly there was already a secure successful community of Jews there. The Jewish immigrants were condemned by some English Jews whilst others welcomed them with open arms. On the other hand the English people blamed the Jews for the overcrowding in Britain and also for making it difficult to look for jobs and work. The Jews settled in the large cities of London, Leeds and Manchester. These cities had a large population of Jews who were hoped to be supported by the Russian Jews, there was also a great opportunity of work here. However the Jews had to live in the poorer, overcrowding areas of these cities. Despite the overcrowding and poor living conditions, the house rent was high due to the shortage of housing. The rent along with lack of jobs and living conditions were all causes of racism and injustice against the Jews. However most Jews lived in the poorer areas, as this was all they could afford. Some wealthy Jews took action and built blocks of flats. Due to the immigration of the Jews, before 1881 British inhabitants expanded at a rate of 4% per year, after 1881 the population increased 10% every year. However the Jews that had come all settled in the East end, thus making this area concentrated with the number of Jews. This worried some of the Anglo-Jewish community for many reasons. It made the Jews very visible; the Jewish people already living in England were disturbed regarding the influence that so many Jews would have on the good interaction built up by the Jews already living in England with the English people. The Jews were already very different in their traditions, etiquettes and political affairs than that of the British Jews. Soon the Jews became news. The type of work the Jews chose to do – in tailoring and footwear – they chose to do it with Jews who could speak Yiddish (a Jewish language), and who understood their religious needs. The work they chose relied on their existing skills or involved skills that could be learned quickly and had a number of simple recurring procedures. All the work could be done in small grounds, such as houses, cellars e.t.c. The work was done by a small number of people. The situation in such work areas was objectionable. Work hours could also be varied according to the religious calendar. The Jews entered England at a time of rising redundancy and therefore were held responsible by the legislator of challenging with the English taking into account the few jobs which were obtainable. The idea of the immigrant Jews and sweating (the practice of overworking and underpaying workers in cramped, ill-lit and unhealthy conditions), became associated in the minds of many English people. The people of England had many views of the Jews. A negative impression of the Jewish immigrants is that they caused overcrowding, working in unhygienic conditions and breathing an atmosphere of wool particles containing dangerous dyes. The flush was also so outlandish to the laypeople that they had not yet learnt how to pull the chain so as to wash out and clear the toilet. However a positive impression is gained by other inhabitants that they soon became successful and praised them of their intelligence. Most British people commiserated with the Jews but because of the numbers and celebrity of Russian Jewish immigrants, the attitude of people to the Jewish immigrants began to revolutionize. The ‘alien question’, soon became the subject in the British politics. The ‘Alien question’ was of three parts being that some individuals sensed that a law was essential to determine who could colonize in Britain, The aliens became a factor to the sweating matter, and some also reasoned that it was the aliens who pushed up the rents of houses. Soon later a pressure group, the British Brothers’ league was structured, which was to confine alien immigrants. With all these pressures the Conservative Government allotted a Royal Commission on Alien immigration. A new law was soon primed on the Royal Commission’s work. The Bill of 1904 would eliminate as undesirable, ‘persons of extremely bad character, or without perceptible means of support or likely to become a public charge. However the shipping companies who transported the immigrants also promoted the Government to gain their support and the liberals also strongly opposed this bill being passed. Due to such opposition the bill was withdrawn. However the Conservatives that the new law would promote voters especially at a time when the next general election was in a years time, so the Aliens Bill was put back into the Parliament in 1905, and this time the Liberals also never stood in its way as they knew a new law be popular. On 10 August 1905 the bill became law, however if ‘the immigrant is seeking admission to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds, permission to enter shall not be refused on the ground that he does not have enough money or will be a burden on others.’ An extract from the Aliens Act (1905) The conservatives lost the election in 1906, and so the Liberal Home Secretaries operated the law. To start with many immigrants were sent back as they failed to state things which would grant them entry, therefore the number of Jews coming to Britain fell until 1909. However after 1909 the figure of immigrants returned back to the normal figure of 5000 a year. Many Jews welcomed the act or refused to condemn it. The Jews who had just immigrated t6o the East End of London reacted in much the same way as they feared overcrowding and competition of work. The Anglo-Jewish community had stated that the Jews settling in one place would bring attention to their dress, language and manner. They also warned that in fifteen years time the progeny of today’s refugees would be the great bulk of England’s population, and therefore bring shame to the community. To deal with this prospect the education of the children of the Immigrated Jews was encouraged. The leaders of the Jewish community were very anxious and supportive in the fist world war. In the last ten years of the nineteenth century a new movement was put into action called Zionism, this was in favour to gain a Jewish homeland. The favoured place for this was in the ancestral Jewish home, Palestine. However the Anglo-Jewish community opposed the idea of a homeland as they never wanted all their relationships with the British to be gone down the drain. They wanted to be seen as a community loyal to the British and religious not as a people without a homeland. In 1917 the British army invaded Palestine which was then under Turkish rule. The British government issued a statement that broadly supported the creation of a homeland. At t6he same time the British issued another statement which promised the Arabs inde3pendence from the Turks. This was to win the support of the Jews in America and to involve America in the war. Empty promises were also made to the Arabs to involve them in the war too on Britain’s side. From 1914, the anti-German hysteria that swept the country did not distinguish between Jew and German. Criticism to the Jewish immigrants centred on how many of the new immigrants joined up to fight. The Anglo-Jewish wanted to fight for their new country. Press reports of Russian Jews moving from London to the countryside to avoid the Zeppelin raids added to prejudice towards the Jews. The Balfour Declaration brought attention to Zionism in Britain which made people believe that the Jews were ungrateful to their adapted country – Britain. The Russian Revolution also helped form the views of the British against the Jewish immigrants and were portrayed by the newspaper as communists. The Aliens Restrictions Act was passed in 1914 which as a result had a huge influence on Jewish immigrants. Zionism was too now weakened whilst prejudice against the Jews increased. Using the powers of 1919 almost all the poor working-class immigrants went to decline. In the 1920s many Jews had now gained a higher position within the British society and were a more prosperous community. Due to this prosperity the Jews now started to move out of the East end of London. As Britain saw the beginning of the Depression years one Labour Politician was Sir Oswald Mosley. He resigned from Labour in 1930 as many of his ideas of how to solve the problem of unemployment were rejected. He set up his own new party in 1931 known as the New Party. Mosley, in 1932 created the British Union Fascists (BUF). Mosley saw the socialists and the communists as a danger. Mosley also enjoyed support from the ‘Daily Mirror’ owner, Lord Rothermere, through which he made sure that it reported favourably of the BUF. In the beginning the BUF were not anti-Semitic, but later in 1934 the BUF policy changed and now Jewish people were no longer allowed to be members of the BUF. Throughout the year 1934 Jewish people were attacked and provoked. The Jews were all advised not to do anything against the law thus not to be seen as lawbreakers. On 4 October 1936 the BUF planned a march through the East End of London and planned to listen to Mosley speak at intervals. Jewish Trade Unionists and communists arranged a blockade to the march with barricades. As a result the BUF had to abandon the march from the Tower of London to Victoria Park in Hackney. Immediately after the event of Cable Street, support for the BUF grew. However in the long term the BUF were in decline. Mosley’s attempts to try and stir up violence towards the Jews were much criticised. The Government tried to stop this by passing the Incitement to Disaffection Act in November 1934 and a new public Order Act in 1936 which affected the holding of marches. However the BUF did not win any local or general election seats and as a result Mosley was imprisoned from 1940 to 1943. The event of Cable Street showed that there were divisions among the Jews themselves as thousands of working-class Jews rejected the calls of their leaders to stay off the streets. This event also proved that extreme parties were also a threat to law and order, and as a result was acted quickly to in order to stop their influence. In 1945 when the Second World War ended, Europe had changed. Millions of people had lost their homes etc. Towns and cities were devastated. Countries in Eastern Europe were taken over by the communist government with very different ideas about equality and freedom to those governments in the West. Many people in Eastern Europe did not want to live under a communist government. As a result of these wars millions of people became refugees. Many people were already in Britain when the war ended. After Hitler invaded Poland many Poles left Poland and many came to Britain, and some came to Britain only to fight against Germany. When Poland became communist in 1945, many of the Poles decided to stay in Britain. Some of the refugees from Europe came to Britain in search of a new life and were welcomed by the British as Britain needed to be re-built after the devastation of the war. Large numbers of workers were needed especially in mining, engineering, agriculture, transport and building. This was due to many British men and women being killed, injured etc. During the war many women were encouraged to work but after were encouraged to stay at home. This meant that more workers were needed to replace them. Britain was made worse by many British people moving to the Old Common Wealth countries. During the Second World War the British Empire was very important in the war, as these people had raw materials, people industries etc. After the Second World War, these people from British colonies were encouraged to come to settle in Britain. This was because Britain’s post war labour shortage could not be solved by refugees alone. British companies advertised in the New Commonwealth Countries for workers. All citizens of the British colonies were given the right to settle in Britain. Almost one quarter of the world’s population was allowed to settle in Britain due to its great empire. In 1948 the British Nationality Act was passed which gave citizens of the British colonies and of the commonwealth equal rights of citizenship in Britain as those people who had been born and bread in Britain. After the second World War many Caribbean’s emigrated to Britain. This was partly because they had fought for this country and others were just curious to see the land they had fought for. At first immigration from the Caribbean to Britain was slow but soon after a hurricane in Jamaica in 1951 immigration increased. Another cause of the rise in immigration was that the USA had set strict rules on immigration from the Caribbean and so people who wanted to migrate had to look for other options of where to migrate to. Many people who lived in cities were well paid and did not want to do jobs like cleaning etc and so immigrants from the colonies were encouraged to do this type of work. Many West Indians were welcomed as nurses and the Caribbean’s settled in Britain and so the later arrivals were mainly wives, children and parents of those people who had settled in Britain. Britain was portrayed to these people who migrated to Britain as being the ‘mother-country,’ kind, caring and powerful. Upon migrating, many of these people were surprised to see the amount of filth and dirt in Britain. Britain was not as wealthy as they had expected. However people who had come to Britain to fight in the Second World War were welcomed warm heartedly, but on the other hand when these people returned to Britain due to labour shortages, the treatment they received was completely contradictory to what they had received at the Second World War. When Queen Victoria came to throne, Britain had the smallest empire with the least territory. Queen Victoria’s death however, left behind a greater territory approximately ruling 500 million people. British ideas were of being superior to any other race, thus inferior. Britain used ‘adverts’ to target many people and to spread its ideas of unity and loyalty to the people of Britain. Between 1945 and 1968, important changes were made to who had the right of citizenship in Britain. The rights of citizenship had been restricted by 1968. The changes happened partly because of racist attitudes and partly due to changing economic changes. Since the Second World War the pattern of migration into and out of Britain has changed. This has been due to changes in the law, wars, abuses of human rights, poverty, famine, and the formation of the European Union. Since 1990 the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Britain have also changed and become a controversial political issue. There was less immigration after the Second World War of the British citizenships had been born in the colonies of commonwealth. The British Nationality Act and the immigration Laws made it difficult to enter Britain. However immigration from the European Union was allowed however immigration from poor undeveloped countries such as the Caribbean were not allowed to set work permits in Britain. Overtime people had come to Britain as refugees and also left in search of refuge such as the Jews. Nevertheless, people have migrated to Britain due top wars in their own countries leaving millions of people homeless, in search of jobs, famine in their homelands, in search of a better life, education, medication, for marriage purposes, persecution in their country and some have also come to Britain as refugees and even as asylum seekers. In conclusion, the reasons for the entry of millions of people into Britain during the years from 1880 to the recent day are extremely complicated, revolving around a complex of economic, political. Short term, underlying and personal push and pull factors. The immigration of any individual minority includes a set of factors peculiar to itself. In some cases, such as the mid-nineteenth century, Irish push factors played an overwhelming role, as the famine literally forced the people off the land. However the geographical proximity of Britain and the open door policy towards immigration played a fundamental role in attracting the Irish. â€Å"The potato crop failed completely and one million Irish died of disease starvation. As a result about 200,000 people emigrated, about half of them to Britain.† Between 1870 and 1914 over 200,000 Jewish people arrived in Britain. Most of these Jews lived in East London where living conditions were bad. It was easy for them to fin d work (for untrained people e.g. clothing and furniture) but were low paid and worked long hours. Yet many Jews visited the synagogue and were free to practice their religion. The entry of immigrants to Britain did not happen steadily but in waves. Some periods had more immigrants flooding into Britain than others. The media have recognised that Britain has become a multi society and presents some positive images of Blacks and Asians. People of Asian origin have become the most successful businessmen in Britain. In short, there have been both continuities and new developments in the history of immigrant minorities in Britain before and after 1945. Because of the more complete documentation after 1945, we can form a fuller picture of the contemporary situation. However, we can make the following assertions for the whole course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. First, Britain has witnessed for a complex of reasons, the constant entry of a wide variety of immigrants, who have played an important role in the development of the economy. Second, these groups have varied in size, social composition, and gender make-up, but they are part of British capitalist class society, not distinct from it. Finally, ethnicity has developed to a great extent, especially amongst larger minorities. However, as a different view, in conclusion, I also say that social scientists have found it very difficult to explain one of the most popular methods of explanation is to use a ‘push – pull’ model which distinguishes between the ‘push’ of economic necessity in the migrants home society and the ‘pull’ of opportunity from abroad. The difficulty with this approach is that it obscures the inherent complexity of population movements and, as some critics have pointed out, it often treats the subjects as if they were automatons reacting to forces beyond their control. Ceri Peach, in his study of West Indian migration to Britain (1968), warns against relying too much on ‘push’ determinism. The movements he describes did not take place during periods of economic depression in the Caribbean and they were not correlated to high rates of population growth. Peach concludes that there is ‘strong evidence for the view that (West Indian) migration was reacting not to internal conditions, but to a sing external stimulus’ – namely the demand for labour in Britain (1968:93). This conclusion might be satisfactory if one wishes to leave the analysis of the highest levels of abstraction, but the migrants themselves rarely accept generalisations of this nature. Furthermore, other Historians have clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to categorise all of the relevant factors as either ‘push’ or ‘pull’.

Womens Life

WOMEN’S LIFE WORLD CIVIALIZATIONS HIS 103 OCTOBER 9,2012 The life of a women has changed in way of improvement. Back in the days women couldn’t really do much but stay home and take care of the kids. In the 1800 Elizabethan era times most people's rights were fairly limited. There was no democracy, and most people had very little say in national politics, though on the parochial level, men and women could be elected to parish councils. What you did with your life was as much influenced by your social class, degree of wealth, etc, as it was by your gender.For instance, few children get a chance of more than a very basic education,and most boys and girls would go to work at an early age. it was taken for granted that people defered to those of a higher social class, and the young were expected to defer to the old. For women specifically, there were married women's property acts which were passed in the 1860s and 1880s. The divroce laws were changed so that a woman could o btain a divorce from an adulterous or abusive spouse, and the Infant Custody Act gave women who were innocent parties in divorce the right to have custody of young children.In Elizabethan times, the role of the midwife in society was an important one, since childbirth was regarded as an exclusively female affair. The midwife had to be a woman of good character, and was licenced by the local bishop, since she was authorised to baptise newborn babies who she thought were unlikely to live long enough to have a proper baptissm. However, in the 18th century, the rise of the male obstetrician meant that the midwife became a marginal figure in the childbirthing process,instead of being at the centre of it.In elizabethan times,when most people lived in the country and were at least partially self-sufficient, being a housewife was a demanding role that involved many specialist skills. A housewife had to be able to brew and bake, spin and weave, preserve food, make home remedies for illness, make other household items like soap and candles, many women even made their own cosmetics and perfume. And they would be in charge of the poultry and the dairy, make their own butter and cheese, and sell their urplus produce at market. Women in the Victorian era . A wife's proper role was to love, honour and obey her husband, as her marriage vows stated. A wife's place in the family hierarchy was secondary to her husband, but far from being considered unimportant, a wife's duties to tend to her husband and properly raise her children were considered crucial cornerstones of social stability by the Victorians. Women seen as falling short of society's expectations were believed to be deserving of harsh criticism.In divorce great changes in the situation of women took place in the 19th century, especially concerning marriage laws and the legal rights of women to divorce and/or gain custody of children. The situation that fathers always received custody of their children, leaving the mo ther without any rights, slowly started to change. husband only had to prove his wife's adultery, a woman had to prove her husband had not only committed adultery but also incest, bigamy, cruelty or desertion. Women could secure a separation on the grounds of cruelty and claim custody of their children.Magistrates even authorised protection orders to wives whose husbands have been convicted of aggravated assault. Victorian morality and sexuality Women were expected to have sex with only one man, their husband. However, it was acceptable for men to have multiple partners in their life. If women did have sexual contact with another man, they were seen as ruined or fallen. In education women were not freely offered the opportunity to study subjects of an extended, classical, and commercial nature. This made it difficult for a woman to break free from the societal constraints to achieve independent economical status.Education was specialised by gender. Women were provided with the oppor tunity to study refined subjects such as history, geography and general literature which would provide them with interesting but noncontroversial topics for discussion. Despite the restrictions and stigmatisation, some women did excel in â€Å"male† subjects such as law, physics, engineering, science and art. These women pioneered the path for the much improved gender equality in modern education in the UK. Women were rarely given the opportunity to attend university. It was even said that studying was against their nature and could make them ill.They were to stay more or less an â€Å"ornament of society. An Egyptian woman could acquire possessions in many ways. She could receive it as gifts or as an inheritance from her parents or husband. Or she could receive it from purchases with goods which she earned either through employment, or which she borrowed. A woman had claims to up to one-third of all the community property in her marriage. For example, the property which acc rued to her husband and her only after they were married. When a woman brought her own private property to a marriage, ( dowry), it remained hers, even though the husband often had the free use of it.In the event of a divorce her property had to be returned to her, in addition to any divorce settlement that might be stipulated in the original marriage contract. A woman was free to bequeath property from her husband to her children or even to her own brothers and sisters (unless there was some stipulation against such in her husband's will). A woman could also freely disinherit children of her private property, i. e. , the property she brought to her marriage or her share of the community property. She could selectively bequeath that property to certain children and not to others.Marrige was a very important part of ancient Egyptian society. Some people say it was almost a duty to get married. Compared to today's world, Egyptian marriages were very different; husbands could marry mor e than one wife, and people of close relations (first cousins, brothers and sisters, ect. ) could also wed one another. As you read you can see that women’s life has changed to better a women’s life. The women now have lots of rights and are very successful in many ways. Reference , Ph. D / Role Of Women In Ancient Egypt The Natural women’s museum

An Analysis Of Liberal Democracy In Russia Politics Essay

An Analysis Of Liberal Democracy In Russia Politics Essay Russia is one of the important countries and the largest country in the world, which established worldwide power and influence in the international politics. The arguable question, in which interested a lot of knowledgeable people, is what the regime has the Russian Federation after the death of Communism and how it works. The majority of Western Europe and USA has very critical opinion about Russian politics and definitely argue that Russia has not liberal democracy. They also believe that it is unlikely to thrive in post-Communist Russia. In my essay I will debate if liberal democracy could thrive or not in Russian Federation, giving the arguments and facts of both sides. Firstly I will argue that liberal democracy cannot thrive in Russia because of many arguments. The first is the high level of corruption. The second is the siloviki and oligarchs, who have enormous political power. The third is absence of media freedom. The fourth is lack of civil society. The fifth is Constituti on, which give a lot of power to the president and no strong opposition. It means that Russia has a one-party system. However, there is some soil for liberal democracy. The first argument is democratic experience. The second argument is a right to create political parties. The third is a right to practise citizens’ culture and religious. The fourth is a freedom of speech, belief and discussion. I argue that liberal democracy could thrive in Russia, only if the barriers to liberal democracy will pass, such as corruption, siloviki, absence of media freedom. I will argue that to make more suitable soil for liberal democracy Russia should change a Constitution, to create a strong opposition, and emphasis for reforms, which protect individual rights, increase civil liberties, improve the well-being of citizens; develop society to pursue their interests and develop own talents. But, when these criteria would not be achieved, liberal democracy is unlikely to thrive in post-communist Russia. Criteria of liberal democracy Firstly, I would like to define democracy and describe the criteria of liberal democracy, looking which of them Russia has. According to McFaul, democracy is the institutional arrangement where the individuals have the power to make political decisions by means of competitive struggle. According to this minimal definition and implicit in ‘analysis of the rule of law, civil society and the party system in Russia is an ideal type of liberal democracy rather than a minimal standard of electoral democracy’ (McFaul, 2004: 2-3). However, liberal democracy has the criteria, by which we could judge Russian regime. The first is the control of the state by elected civilian officials; the military is subordinate to the government. The second is a right to form a party and contest the elections by any group, which adheres to constitutional principles. Thirdly, a right for different ethnic, religious or different minority groups should exist fo r practicing their culture or express their interests in the political process. Fourthly, the freedom of belief, opinions, discussion and speech should exist. The last is that the citizens are equal under the law.

Implementation of International Legal Standards in The Investment Assignment

Implementation of International Legal Standards in The Investment Legislation of Uzbekistan - Assignment Example Uzbekistan has freedom and independence in development of industry in line with national goals. In addition, there is also an opportunity for Uzbekistan becomes the main investment location preferred by both regional and foreign investors. There is also an opportunity for Uzbekistan to become a base for production in the regional market. Its central location provides a large market especially the home market. The country has freedom in the utilization of new resources as a result of the development of new export markets and advanced technological progress. Law for in foreign investment Uzbekistan allows investors (foreign) to engage in wide range business opportunities that are not legislatively prohibited. Foreign investors investment in Uzbekistan through legal means that include branch establishment, real property acquisition and buying of shares. There are no legal preconditions stipulating nationals to have interests of ownership in foreign investments except in banking sector. The government encourages joint ventures of local partners and foreign investors. Foreign investors have to register with Justice Ministry to get legal rights as persons. These imply that foreign investment laws in Uzbek have opened the door to all forms of business investors in the available business opportunities. Entry requirements for foreign investors are therefore straight with minimal performance requirements. In Uzbekistan, the right for investors to exit and repatriation of funds are guaranteed. However, in practice, entry requirements for investors especially individual investors are controlled by the government. The investors will have to negotiate with Uzbek government on key issues that relate to joint agreements of a joint venture, acquisition of government-controlled assets, application for tax incentives and raw material importation rights.  

Stadiums are bad for economy of a city and tax payers pay the cost (4 Research Paper

Stadiums are bad for economy of a city and tax payers pay the cost (4 real life examples, TABLES AND CHARTS) Cost enefit analysi - Research Paper Example However, the income generated in the stadiums does not directly benefit the taxpayers and the residents of the city. The amount that the fans spend when watching a match does not benefit those who work in the stadiums. The amount does not lead to increased growth of the local economy because the amount is not included in the local economy. The employees, who work in the stadiums and other sources of the stadiums like the taxpayers, do not benefit from the money earned. Instead, the biggest share of the amount pays the players. However, most of these players in many cases do not belong to the local community. Therefore, the local community, which pays tax to help in construction of the stadiums, does not benefit too. Though the stadiums collect large amounts of money, the money is spent in other locations (Barros et al. 42). Taxpayers who contribute towards the construction of the stadiums do not attend the events that take place in the stadiums yet they pay for the events indirectly through tax. Stadiums fail to improve and develop the local economy because it concentrates more on the intensity of labour. In this case, low levels of unskilled type of labour activities take place within the metropolitan area. The people who benefit from this type of unskilled labour do not get high wages or salaries. This leads to a fall in the share of the income of the region because those who are highly skilled do not get a chance to get a job in the stadiums. The jobs that the local community gets are either temporary types of jobs or part time jobs, which are not effective to improve the economy of the local region that has the stadium facility. Construction of a stadium assists a team from the community. However, the players who play for the city do not live in the city. The assumption made by the metropolitan is that even if the players do not contribute much in building of the stadium, maybe they spend their money doing shopping and paying house taxes (Andreff and Szyman ski 56). However, most players have houses far away from the cities in where they live with their families, do shopping, and spend their leisure time. The space used to construct the stadium is large enough hinder expansion and development of a city. Those people whose land is taken to cater for the area of construction of the stadium get angry and leave the city (Morris 67). However, the people who leave the city may be good businesspeople who can invest and create job opportunities for the local community and by doing so; the economy of the city can grow to a higher level. Some of those people could be good investors, and this hinders them from investing in construction of commercial buildings, which would bring more income to the city through tax and to the dwellers of the city. When a city lacks potential investor to invest in the transportation sector and other smart type of investments, which lead to economic growth, the economy is likely to go downwards. Therefore, constructi on of the stadium does not support a city’s expansion and development. The cost of operating the stadium is very high. However, this amount used in maintenance and operations in the stadium