Free Essays on Bergamot Station Arts Center

The Bergamot Station Arts Center at Santa Monica constantly displays art works to those who wishes to be exposed to art. This makes Bergamot Station a perfect place for art students to gain a slice of the contemporary art scene. The collective works by the artist Laura Lasworth titled, â€Å"The Gray†, was on display in the Hunsaker/Schlesinger Fine Art Gallery on March 25th. The gallery is located at one of the corners of the plaza and seems rather distant and alienated to the rest of the displays. Interestingly, this alienation and perhaps loneliness was echoed by Lasworth’s works inside the gallery. The Hunsaker/Schlesinger gallery itself, even compared to other galleries in the plaza, is rather small, and the display area conveys a sense of closeness. The size of the displaying area made the personal touch in the works even more pronounced. The gallery was quiet, with few audiences, perhaps a result of being distant to the main cluster. The gallerists worked quietly in the back room leaving the viewing area undisturbed. The main entrance to the gallery remained closed after each guest entered, thus separates the gallery from the rest of the world. Perhaps this is intentional as to create an overall artistic experience. In the gallery, the viewers emerge themselves to the surreal world that Lasworth created. The works exhibited by Lasworth were mostly paintings consist of very dull and desaturated colors. Black, white and gray, were used heavily, and worked fittingly to the winter sceneries found in many of the paintings. Some of the works were almost grayscale. The painterly bush strokes and the use of few, but soft colors reflected a feminine impression on all of the works. The subject matters were presented through a surrealistic manner and mostly consist of large areas of emptiness. With the exception of a few, most of the works are small, easel-sized paintings, bordered in simple, black framings. The dimens... Free Essays on Bergamot Station Arts Center Free Essays on Bergamot Station Arts Center The Bergamot Station Arts Center at Santa Monica constantly displays art works to those who wishes to be exposed to art. This makes Bergamot Station a perfect place for art students to gain a slice of the contemporary art scene. The collective works by the artist Laura Lasworth titled, â€Å"The Gray†, was on display in the Hunsaker/Schlesinger Fine Art Gallery on March 25th. The gallery is located at one of the corners of the plaza and seems rather distant and alienated to the rest of the displays. Interestingly, this alienation and perhaps loneliness was echoed by Lasworth’s works inside the gallery. The Hunsaker/Schlesinger gallery itself, even compared to other galleries in the plaza, is rather small, and the display area conveys a sense of closeness. The size of the displaying area made the personal touch in the works even more pronounced. The gallery was quiet, with few audiences, perhaps a result of being distant to the main cluster. The gallerists worked quietly in the back room leaving the viewing area undisturbed. The main entrance to the gallery remained closed after each guest entered, thus separates the gallery from the rest of the world. Perhaps this is intentional as to create an overall artistic experience. In the gallery, the viewers emerge themselves to the surreal world that Lasworth created. The works exhibited by Lasworth were mostly paintings consist of very dull and desaturated colors. Black, white and gray, were used heavily, and worked fittingly to the winter sceneries found in many of the paintings. Some of the works were almost grayscale. The painterly bush strokes and the use of few, but soft colors reflected a feminine impression on all of the works. The subject matters were presented through a surrealistic manner and mostly consist of large areas of emptiness. With the exception of a few, most of the works are small, easel-sized paintings, bordered in simple, black framings. The dimens...

Brady Bill And Its Passage Essay Research

Brady Bill And Its Passage Essay, Research Paper Brady measure and its passageIntroductionThe legislative procedure in the United States Congress shows us an interesting play inwhich a measure becomes a jurisprudence through via medias made by diverse and sometimes conflictinginterests in this state. There have been many controversial measures passed by Congress, butamong all, I have taken a peculiar involvement in the transition of the Brady measure. When the Bradydebate was in full swing in Congress about three old ages ago, I was still back in my state, Japan, where the ownership of guns is purely restricted by Torahs. While watching televisionnews studies on the Brady argument, I wondered what was doing it so hard for this gun controlbill to go through in this gun force ridden state. In this paper, I will follow the measure # 8217 ; s seven yearhistory in Congress, which I hope will uncover how partizan political relations played a important function in theBrady measure # 8217 ; s transition in this policy doing subdivision. The Brady measure took its name from Jim Brady, the former imperativeness secretary of PresidentReagan, who was shot in the caput and partly paralyzed in the blackwash effort on thepresident in 1981. This measure was about a waiting period on pistol purchases leting constabulary tocheck the backgrounds of the prospective purchasers to do certain that guns are non sold toconvicted criminals or to those who are mentally unstable. Even the advocates of the measure agreedthat the consequence of the measure on controling the gun force might be minimum sing the fact that themajority of guns used for condemnable intents were purchased through illegal traders. However, the Brady Bill represented the first major gun control statute law passed by Congress for morethan 20 old ages, and it meant a important triumph for gun control advocates in their manner towardeven stricter gun control statute law in the hereafter. Gun Rights V. Gun ControlThe Brady measure, the Brady Handgun Violence Preventi on Act, was foremost introduced byEdward F. Feighan ( D-OH ) in the House of the100th Congress as HR975 on February 4,1987. The measure was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and the argument began. Throughout thedebate on the Brady measure, there was ever a clear partizan split ; most of the Democrats, exceptfor those from the Southern provinces, supported the measure while most of the Republicans were in theopposition. For illustration, when the foremost introduced Brady measure lost to an amendment by BillMcCollum ( R-FL ) for a survey of an instant cheque system ( 228-182 ) , most Republicans votedfor the McCollum amendment ( 127 for and 45 against ) while the bulk of the Democratsvoted against it ( 127 for and 137 against ) . The exclusion was the Southern Democrats most ofwhom joined the Republicans to vote for the amendment. This party division was non sosurprising, nevertheless, sing the immense run parts made by the main gun anteroom, the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) , directed largely to the Republicans, and the exclusion ofthe Southern Democrats could be explained by the gun right supportive nature of theirconstituents. In the 1992 election for illustration, this organisation made $ 1.7 million contributionto its sympathetic congressional campaigners and spent another $ 870,000 in independentexpenditures for congressional races.1 The influence the NRA exercised on the statute law wasenormous since the concluding measure passed in 1993 was a via media version reflecting some of theNRA-sought commissariats. I could state that it was because of this relentless anteroom that the Bradybill took every bit long as 7 old ages to go a law.On the other side, the advocators of the measure enjoyed a broad support from the populace aswell as from the Handgun Control Inc. , the main gun control anteroom led by Sarah Brady, the wifeof James Brady. The consistent public support for the measure from the debut through thepassage of the measure was manifested by many polls. One of the polls conducted by NBC Newsand Wall Street Journal on the passage of the measure said that 74 per centum of the 1,002respondents agreed that # 8220 ; the jurisprudence is good but more is needed. # 8221 ; 2 It is without inquiry that thispublic support played a important function in the eventual transition of the bill.The Brady measure passed the House in the 102nd CongressAfter about four old ages from its first debut to the Congress, the Brady measure wasreintroduced to the House in the 102nd Congress as HR 7 on January 3, 1991, sponsored by76 representatives including Feighan, William J Hughes ( D-NJ ) , and Charles Schumer ( D-NY ) .The measure was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and the hearings began in the JudiciarySubcommittee on Crime on March 21, 1991. As written, this measure required a weeklong waitingperiod on the pistol purchases. Schumer, the president every bit good as the head patron of the measure, explained before the Subcommittee that the Brady measure # 8220 ; has a really simple intent: to maintain lethalhandguns out of the custodies of people who shouldn # 8217 ; Ts have them.3 # 8243 ; Aside from the house supportfrom the populace, the measure besides gained the backup from the former president Reagan who, in atribute to James Brady, said that it is # 8220 ; merely kick common sense that there be a waiting period toallow local jurisprudence enforcement functionaries to carry on background cheques on those who wish to purchase ahandgun. # 8221 ; 4 This Reagan # 8217 ; s comment was important since he had long been a member of theNRA. On April 10, the Subcommittee approved to direct the measure to the Judiciary Committee bythe ballot of 9-4. The ballots were clearly divided along the party line with the exclusive exclusion ofF. James Sensenbrenner Jr. ( R-WI ) , one of the few GOP protagonists of the measure, who joined theDemocrats to vote for it. In the interim, the lobbying by both sides had inten sified. The NRAclaimed that the measure went against the rule of the Constitution, indicating out the SecondAmendment which says: # 8220 ; A good regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to maintain and bear Weaponries, shall non be infringed. # 8221 ; They argued that it wasnot the guns but the people who committed offenses, stating that tougher sentences for thecriminals would work better than the waiting period in cut downing offenses. On the other manus, James Brady was buttonholing intensely in his wheelchair supported by his-wife-led HandgunControl Inc. , which had an emotional entreaty to other members of Congress.In the Judiciary Committee, Harley O. Staggers Jr. ( D-WV ) , pushed by the NRA, proposed a replacement measure ( HR 1412 ) which would necessitate provinces to put up an instant checksystem so that gun traders could happen out instantly on a telephone call whether the purchaserhad a condemnable record without any delay. The Staggers # 8217 ; alternate, nevertheless, reminded many ofthe McCollum amendment that wrecked the Brady measure in 1988. With the recognition ofthe Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, that the practical usage of such instant cheque systemwould be old ages away,5 the Staggers # 8217 ; replacement was rejected by the Committee by the ballot of11-23. The commission so proceeded to vote on the Brady measure ( HR 7 ) , O.K.ing it by the 23-11 ballot. On May 8, the Staggers # 8217 ; amendment was rejected once more ( 193-234 ) on the floor. TheHouse went on to O.K. the weeklong waiting period Brady measure by the ballot of 239-186, puting it on the Senate calendar on June 3. Argument in the SenateIn the Senate, the advocates of the Brady measure, including the Majority Leader George J. Mitchell ( D-ME ) , were working hard to maintain the Brady linguistic communication portion of the omnibus crimelegislation ( S-1241 ) which had already been passed by the House-Senate confe rencecommittee. Ted Stevens ( R-AK ) proposed an amendment to replace the waiting period with aninstant-check system. This amendment was really much similar to the Staggers # 8217 ; proposal made inthe House, guaranting that the possible purchasers who were eligible for the purchase would non haveto delay to purchase a gun. Stevens and other GOP oppositions argued that the waiting period wouldnot cut down the offense rate since it would non impact the bulk of felons who could purchaseguns illicitly while impacting the observant citizens # 8217 ; Second Amendment right to buy a gunfor athleticss and runing intents. In response to this statement, Mitchell and his other pro-BradyDemocrats maintained that developing a package for a national blink of an eye background checksystem would take old ages, and even if it was available, instant cheques would non work every bit adeterrent to hot-blooded offenses by those without condemnable records. Mitchell called the Stevens # 8217 ; progra m # 8220 ; a transparent attempt to extinguish the waiting period, # 8221 ; 6 stating that it was merely a pretense tothe populace to back gun command while really barricading it. On June 28, the Senate rejected the Stevens # 8217 ; amendment by the ballot of 44-54 with allbut nine Democrats, all from Southern or rural provinces, voting against it. The 54 ballots, nevertheless, were non plenty for the Brady advocators since they would necessitate 6 more ballots to halt a possibleGOP filibuster. On the other manus, filibustering was non the best solution for the GOPopponents neither, since in making so, they would hold to give the offense measure they wanted. Resulting from this state of affairs was a via media by Mitchell, Metzenbaum, and the GOPleader Bob Dole ( R-KS ) . In this via media, the length of the waiting period was changedfrom seven yearss to five concern yearss, and a new proviso was added which would stop thewaiting period in two and a half old ages upon the Attorne y General # 8217 ; s verification that the instantcheck system met certain criterions. However, it was the six ballots that determined the fateof the Brady measure in the 102nd Congress. The Senate failed to take concluding action before the terminal ofthe 1991 congressional session, and even with the transition in the House, the Brady measure still hadto wait two more old ages for its concluding transition. In the 103rd Congress ( House ) In 1993, the twelvemonth in which the Brady measure got enacted, there was a turning national tidefavoring stricter gun control. The Brady advocates were cheerful with an outlook that thelong-debated measure would eventually go through that twelvemonth. The rush in the public support was assuring ; aCNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted during March 12 through 14 showed that 88 percentof their 1,007 respondents favored the bill.7 The gun control advocates besides had two significantvictories in two States ; in Virginia, a statute law was passed cur tailing pistol purchases to onegun purchase per month, and in New Jersey, the NRA and other gun rights advocates lost intheir attempt to revoke the province # 8217 ; s prohibition on selling assault rifles. Furthermore, the 103rd Congresshad a pro-Brady president. In contrast to Bush, a longtime NRA member, President Clintonopenly expressed his support for the measure ; in his address to Congress on February 17, he said: # 8220 ; Ifyou pass the Brady measure, I # 8217 ; ll certain mark it. # 8221 ; Confronting this countrywide pro-Brady tide, Even the NRAshowed a little alteration in its linguistic communication ; James Jay Baker, the top NRA lobbyist, said that hisorganization might be able to O.K. certain version of the bill.8 In this favourable ambiance, the Brady measure was introduced in the103rd Congress in theHouse as HR 1025 on February 22, 1993 by Schumer and 98 other cosponsors, referred to theJudiciary Committee. The president of the Committee, Jack Brooks ( D-TX ) ag reed to maintain thebill separate from his other overall offense statute law ( HR 3131 ) , promoting the Bradysupporters with a hope to go through the measure before the scheduled Thanksgiving dissolution. By thedirection of the Rules Committee, the House voted on the House Resolution 302, a ruleproviding for the floor consideration of the Brady measure, O.K.ing it by the ballot of 238-182. Aswritten, the measure provided for a five-day waiting period upon pistol purchases every bit good as theestablishment of a national instant felon background cheque system. The measure besides had aprovision necessitating that the waiting period stage out upon the Attorney General # 8217 ; s blessing of theviability of the countrywide instant cheque. The measure by so already represented a compromisebetween the Brady waiting period and the NRA blink of an eye check.On the floor, the GOP oppositions proposed a series of amendments. George W. Gekas ( R-PA ) offered an amendment stoping the waiting period after five old ages from its enforcementregardless of the viability of the replacement instant cheque system. Schumer argued that the Gekas # 8217 ; alleged sundown proviso was an unrealistic deadline, indicating out the changing condemnable recordkeeping of each States. However, Gekas and other advocates of the amendment insisted thatthe sundown proviso was necessary in order to coerce the Justice Department to set up the computing machine cheque system quickly. The Gekas # 8217 ; amendment prevailed on a 236-98 ballot. McCollum proposed an amendment which would revoke the bing State waitingperiods on the installment of the national blink of an eye cheque system. Some States had alreadyadopted waiting periods, and the Brady bill would not affect those states having a waiting periodof more than five days. McCollum claimed that his proposal would make the bill much fairerand more balanced, and assured that it would not affect other State gun laws such as Virginia’sone gun purchase per month legislation. However, meeting with strong opposition fromSchumer and others, this amendment preempting State laws was rejected 175-257. There wasanother amendment proposed by Jim Ramstad (R-MN) requiring the police to provide within 20days a reason for any denial of a handgun purchase. This amendment was accepted bySchumer, and was adopted easily by the vote of 431-2. The House proceeded to voted on the Brady bill on Nov. 10. Just before the vote, thechief sponsor Schumer encouraged other Representatives on the floor to vote for the bill, saying:†today’s votes gives the House of Representatives a real chance to stem the violence on our streets and calm the fear of our citizens.† The bill was passed by the House. It was the secondtime for the House to pass the Brady bill, and this time, the vote was 238-189. Passage in the SenateIn the Senate, the Brady bill was introduced as S 414 by Metzenbaum on February 24,1993, referred to the Judiciary Committee and placed on the calendar on March 3. The bill wasalmost identical to the Dole-Metzenbaum-Mitchell compromise approved by the Senate in June1991, requiring a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases which was to be removed oncean instant check system became operational. After a long negotiation, the Senate agreed to takeup the bill separately from the overall crime bill,9 which paved the way for the floor considerationof the bill on November 19. However, the threat of the unsatisfied GOP opponents to block the bill led to anagreement between the Majority Leader Mitchell and the Minority Leader Dole. Under thisagreement, the two leaders was to offer a substi tute, and the Senate would then vote on theHouse-passed version of the Brady bill (HR 1025) with the text of the substitute inserted in lieuthereof. The Mitchell-Dole substitute included two new provisions: the sunset provision and thepreemption provision, both of which had been sought by the NRA. The sunset provision wasidentical to the Gekas amendment passed by the House which would end the waiting period fiveyears, and the preemption provision was the same as the McCollum amendment rejected by theHouse. At the beginning of the debate on November 19, Mitchell made it clear that he hadagreed to cosponsor this bipartisan compromise as a procedural means to move the long-debated Brady bill through the Senate. The Majority Leader then declared that he would nowmove on to eliminate those two provisions with which he totally disagreed. The Mitchell-Doleagreement provided, however, that if either or both of those provisions were to be stricken, theRepublican opponents would then block th e bill, which meant that the Brady proponents wouldneed at least 60 votes to stop the GOP filibuster to pass the bill and send it to the House.Mitchell and his other Democratic proponents succeeded to pass an amendment striking thepreemption language of the Mitchell-Dole substitute on a vote of 54-45. The other amendmentproposed by Metzenbaum to strike the sunset provision, however, was defeated 43 -56. TheSenate then moved on to the consideration of the Mitchell-Dole substitute with one provisionthus amended. Throughout the debate, the proponents spoke fervently in support of the bill. EdwardM. Kennedy (D-MA) argued that it was time to take action against the epidemic of gun violencein the country, showing shocking statistics which demonstrated the increasing number of gun-related crimes and deaths. He claimed that the waiting period would not only curb the spread ofguns by keeping the lethal weapons out of the hands of convicted felons, but it would alsoreduce the crimes committed in the heat of the moment by providing a cooling off period. Senators whose States had already adopted waiting periods demonstrated with data that thewaiting period had already been proven to work in stopping a significant number of handgunpurchases by convicted felons. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) showed that her State’s 15-daywaiting period stopped 8,060 convicted felons, 1859 drug users, 827 people with mentalillnesses as well as 720 minors from purchasing a gun during January 1991 and September1993. The freshman Senator from California maintained that even though her State’s crime ratewas â€Å"unacceptably† high, it could have been much worse without the legislation. Dole and other GOP opponents, however, insisted that they would continue their effortsto thwart the passage of the bill unless the preemption language was included. Mitchell promptlyrejected the GOP demand, criticizing the double principles of those who, having once insistedthat they could not supp ort the Brady bill because it was the Federal Government telling theStates what to do, turned around and said that they now liked the preemption. Metzenbaumjoined in the argument against the GOP opponents, saying they were blocking the bill â€Å"becausethey were scared to death of the National Rifle Association,† and calling their demand for thepreemption provision â€Å"an effort to kill the bill.† Both sides did not yield, and with two cloturemotions having failed to quash the Republican-led filibuster, one in the afternoon (57-42) and theother at 11 o’clock at night (57-41), the Brady bill was thought by many dead again in theSenate. It was the dissatisfaction of a handful of Republicans with the outcome and their dread ofbeing blamed for killing this popular legislation that saved the life of the Brady bill. The followingday, the discontent of those Republicans who decided to cast a straight vote sent Dole to thenegotiating table again, where he was forced to settle down with a new compromise whichcarried no preemption language. It was actually identical to the one that he and other GOPopponents had filibustered the day before except for the change in the sunsetting period; thecompromise bill would end the waiting period four years after its enforcement, instead of fiveyears, with a possible extension for another year upon the Attorney General’s request. Consequently, by unanimous consent, the Senate agreed to vote on the House-passedversion of the Brady bill (HR 1025) with the text of the compromise inserted in lieu thereof, andalso to request a conference with the House to reconcile the differing versions of the Brady bill.The Brady bill (HR 1025) as amended was passed easily on a vote of 64 to 36, and sent backto the House with a request for a conference. Toward the passageOn November 22, the House agreed to the request of the Senate for a conference uponthe adoption of House Resolution 322 by the vote of 238-187. The confer ees were appointedby the Chairs of each chambers: Brooks, Hughes, Schumer, Sensenbrenner, and Gekas fromthe House and Joseph R. Biden. Jr. (D-DE), Kennedy, Metzenbaum, Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT),and Larry E. Craig (R-ID) from the Senate. Later, Senate Republicans replaced Hatch andCraig with Stevens and Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID). The outcome was a conference report whichpreserved the House 5-year sunset of the waiting period with no provisions for the AttorneyGeneral to replace it with the instant check system before then. Several Senate-passedprovisions had also been dropped: the provision expanding the definition of antique firearmsexempt from gun restrictions to include thousands of functioning World War era rifles, and theone allowing gun sales between dealers from different states. A new provision was added in thereport which would require that the police be notified of multiple purchases.Soon after the conference, the chief Senate negotiator Biden explained how they got tothe conferen ce report. According to his statement, at the beginning of the conference, Stevens,a member of the NRA board of directors, announced that the only acceptable outcome for theSenate Republican conferees, Kempthone and himself, would be the Senate-passed version ofthe Brady bill unchanged. The Senate bill had a provision ending the waiting period as early astwo years after the enforcement if the instant background check met certain standards. All ofthe House conferees including the House Republican conferees rejected that demand, which ledto the adoption of the conference report accepted by all the House conferees, Republicans andDemocrats alike, and the Senate Democratic conferees. Thus, the conference report was madewith Stevens and Kempthorne casting dissenting votes.The House approved the conference report (H. Rept. 103-412) easily on a vote of238-187. In the Senate, however, after the explanation on the conference report, Dole andother Republican opponents fired at Biden with accu sations that he and other DemocraticSenate conferees completely ignored the wishes of the Senate in the conference. Dole said, â€Å"Idon’t think that under these conditions, cloture will be invoked this year or next year.†10 Throughout the day November 23, the hostile atmosphere occupied the Senate floor asthe debate continued. Majority Leader Mitchell declared that he was determined to force theissue to another vote during the year even though it would mean the post-Thanksgiving sessionwhich nobody wanted. Later in the day, he presented two cloture motions for November 30and December 1.The breakdown of the impasse came the following day, November 24, when Doleagreed to accept the terms of the conference report under a compromise that he would submit aseparate bill with the Senate-passed provisions, which was to be considered and votedimmediately in January as soon as the Senate returned to business. Obviously, this solution wasprompted by the loathing of most senator s to come back from their respective States toWashington after Thanksgiving break as well as by the pro-Brady public pressure.Consequently, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent. After seven years of debate, the Brady bill was finally passed by the 103rd Congress.President Clinton, as he had promised, signed the bill into law on November 30, and the Bradybill became Public Law 103-159. Beyond the passageThree years have passed since the passage of the Brady bill, but the fight of Jim andSarah Brady and other gun control advocates still continues for stricter gun control legislation. Inearly 1994, they succeeded in passing the assault weapons ban with the Brady momentum, butsince then the NRA has intensified its lobbying, declaring to repeal the gun control legislation. In1994 elections, for example, the NRA spent $3.2 million to get its supporters elected.11 The last1996 election was also a victory for the NRA in that many of its supporters got re-elected ev enthough their member Dole was defeated by Clinton in the Presidential race. Their most powerfulsupporter in the Congress is probably the House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who oncewrote in his letter to the NRA chief lobbyist Tanya Metaksa: â€Å"As long as I am Speaker of thisHouse, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House.†12Even with the GOP majority in Congress, however, it is sure that NRA supporters will face amajor obstacle in the newly-reelected President Clinton, who has declared: â€Å"For all the thingsthat will be debated, you can mark my words, the Brady law and the assault weapons bill arehere to stay. They will not be repealed.13? Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing a lawsuit filed by NRA-backed gun controlopponents. They claim that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violates the 10thAmendment of the Constitution which protects state and local government from certain federalinterference. The NRA says i t wants to repeal the waiting period as well as the backgroundchecks,14 which reveals the organization’s true intention when it supported the backgroundchecks in its fight against the passage of the Brady bill. The battle between the NRA and theHandgun Control Inc. will continue with the NRA supporters leading the Congress andPresident Clinton challenging them with the veto power. Nevertheless, the Brady bill, with itsunwavering public support, will be the hardest bill to repeal. The passage of the Brady bill of 1993 is one of the best case studies of the legislativeprocess in the U.S. Congress. The seven year history of the bill demonstrated how partisanpolitics played a crucial role in the outcome of the bill, and how difficult it was to make bipartisancompromises to move the bill through Congress. In concluding this research report, I would like to express my deepest respect for thosewho worked hard for the passage of the Brady bill, including Jim and Sarah Brady.

Margin of Appreciation and National Security Essay

Margin of Appreciation and National Security - Essay Example Finally, the third generation of solidarity rights includes the collective rights to political self-determination and economic development†. Human rights help to protect people everywhere from political, legal and social abuses. The statements of human rights are addressed to governments, requiring compliance and enforcement on their part. Human rights deal with how people should be treated by governments and institutions. They are not moral norms applying to interpersonal conduct. According to Thomas Pogge, "to engage human rights, conduct must be in some sense official"3. Human rights apply to all countries and all people. The duties and responsibilities of ensuring human rights to a citizen are bestowed on the government of the country in which the person is located. â€Å"The international community is characterized by diversity, which is the cause of much controversy in the international human rights system since it stresses the universality of human rights.†4,5 In such a situation, the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) enunciated a doctrine that allowed States a certain extent of latitude in the exercise of human rights according to the prevailing situation.6 This is known as the doctrine of margin of appreciation, different from the discretion allowed by the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights (ECHR or Convention) to member states in implementing human rights in internal laws.7 The Court places reliance on the doctrine of margin of appreciation to evaluate states’ extent of interference in human rights, particularly in situations where the rights are in conflict with the needs of the community. In the European context, the doctrine has assumed much greater importance in accommodating the prevailing d iversity by deciding on common perceptions applicable to all and allowing for diversity based on cultural and other factors. The doctrine is observed to have many similarities with the rational basis  test used in the American context.

Segmentation Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Segmentation - Term Paper Example Segments are the portions attained after considering the various variables that include age, gender, and societal class in terms of income generation, attitudes, and opinions. Other factors include their interests, physique, and their knowledge status among many others. Segmentation is part of the many tools and theories in the marketing world (Wedel and Kamakura 69). For instance, the manufacturing of the products is within the target needs of a specific part of a population. This paper will seek to expound on the various steps involved in analyzing of the same. The other objectives of this paper shall include in-depth market analysis of a product of choice in line with segmentation, the various segmentation variables, and how they influence the marketing and selling of the identified product. In addition, it will give a detailed analysis of the existing market segments carefully depicting the underutilized variables in improving the marketing and distribution of the chosen product. Predominantly, there are two classes of variables, which influence the use of segmentation in a target market. The first factor is needs, which essentially is what an individual cannot do without. Mostly, wants take the place of needs as is in many instances individuals confuse their urgency and importance. A want is something that one can simply delay its use as it is not pressing or not of urgency. Essentially, needs are the most basic things and are unavoidable. In market segmentation, the needs of the consumer are the referral point in the marketing strategy. Obtaining of these needs is through the conducting an intensive research in the identified market (McDonald and Dunbar 40). The other variable is profilers, which are the detailed description of consumers’ characteristics by determining their age, area of residence, citizenship, income level and their gender. Further, under area of residence, ascertaining if the segmented group lives in urban or rural setting is cri tical as the way of life for those living in the two tend to be different (Weinstein 54). Amazingly, examples of profilers and the characteristics of the needs revolve around the same factors mentioned above. Further, a field’s societal status can also be the base of the argument that distinguishes what a segmented group would want and what it would not. For instance, race and religion play a role in the segmentation period as marketing of a certain product to a certain race would be unsuccessful as their religion may not allow it (Yankelovich and Meer 5). Therefore, market research is an important tool that would ensure the successful penetration of a product into a targeted market. The lifestyle of those whom a marketing company intends to roll out the product to should also serve as their reference point. Many product releases fail to pick in a market mainly because the product does not get to the right individuals. Poor study of the group leads to such cases, thus inhibit ing exhaustion of the market area. Another factor is the behavior of the segmented group in terms of the product usage. In a market, there are high, middle and low level consumers of a specific product. In essence, profiling them according to their different usage levels helps the marketer to determine the amount of products to release into the market (Wedel and Kamakura 73). One among the extensively growing industries is the automobile one. With the motor industry as the basis, it is

The Language of MIT :: Numbers School Education Communication Essays

The Language of MIT "I have 18.02 due at 4:00 P. M. on 11/14/00 in 16-135. Then I have to go to 8.01 in 26-100 at 5:00 P. M. and get at least a 65 on Exam 3. Do you remember the Athena cluster combination? Oh, yeah, it's 43169*." To an average person, this jargon sounds like a computer code or a series of misunderstandings. However, every MIT student has probably said and heard something like this to describe his or her schedule in a small part of the day. Numbers are the language at MIT, and they specify all sorts of places, classes, work, time, and even the students themselves. This powerful yet simple system of communication has completely engulfed this school and made organization much easier because of the clarity of numbers and the obscurity of language. Even before I considered applying to MIT, I thought of this school as a center of mathematics and science. Of course the name suggests this fact, but not until I visited the campus during the summer before my senior year of high school did I realize the truth of that statement. My visit began with directions to "Lobby 7" where I would meet with a tour guide. Coming from a high school where all the buildings were named and clearly labeled outside, I expected a giant number seven on the front edifice of a building to designate it from the others, but I had no such luck. Instead, I scanned the map of the campus several times before finding Building 7 on Massachusetts Avenue. I did not find this designation for the building anywhere outside until I went in and saw one of the doors inside surrounding the massive lobby. When my tour began, the guide led us through a myriad of identical halls and corridors until we finally went outside. She began to describe the numbering system across campus and explained that many of the buildings we walked through were distinguished on the outside only by numbers on the doors, which I had not understood quite yet. Then she listed some of the required freshman courses including multiple semesters of Calculus and the three main natural sciences. Following the tour was an information session for prospective students and their parents to ask questions about the admissions process.

Quality of Life Essay

Twenty first century is witnessing a world that has become an increasingly diverse and complex place. Changing global trends are causing a paradigm transformation of social and cultural systems. Western societies are experiencing an accelerated aging and people in general have evolved a misconception about today’s elderly. They are perceived as being sick, isolated, self-centred and a burden on society, which is totally false. There is a need to develop social cohesion between generations and within the older generation to understand the matter in correct perspective. An effort has been made in this paper to focus on this key issue and highlight the importance of inter and intragenerational relationships to quality of life to older people. The present demographic profile of the United Kingdom reflects a number of consistent and marked trends. People are living increasingly longer, the birth rate is showing a steady decline and the mean age is increasing steadily. By 2031, the over 80s population is predicted to double to 5 million, according to the Office of National Statistics. If the health of the elderly population follows current trends that will mean people spend more of their lives fighting various illnesses. Since 1981, the amount of time women can expect to live in poor health has increased by 15%. For men, the length of poor health rose by 34% (Triggle, 2004). Besides health, older people face the mobility problems, poor transport and lack of finance. Car usage declines with age and varies by sex. 77 per cent of men and 64 per cent of women aged 65-74 in 2001 in Great Britain had access to automobiles (National Statistics, 2006). Today, we can observe a significant change in family structures. The realignment of family ethos has caused varying degrees of separation between the young and old members of families and affected familial relationships negatively. As people age and their working lives end, they may have more free time available to spend in a social circle. Barriers of older life further enhance the necessity to promote inter and intragenerational relationships. This paper scrutinizes the various dimensions of quality of life at old age. It overviews the factors affecting quality of life and highlight the significance of relationships at old age. Components of Quality of Life  Quality of life is a wide ranging term. The Department for Work and Pensions of UK (2006) identifies five domains as the most relevant to assessing progress in older people’s quality of life: 1) Independence within inclusive communities. 2) Healthy, active living. 3) Fairness in work and later life. 4) Material well-being. 5) Support and care. Independence within inclusive communities necessitates to address issues like exercising independence, exercising choices that give them control over key aspects of their lives, and participation in local community through inter and intragenerational relationships. Health and active living deals with problems like access to healthcare proportionate to older people’s needs. Fairness in work and later life encompasses factors like job opportunities, involvement in decisions that affect their lives, and no age discrimination in access to goods, services and employment. Material wellbeing includes sustaining key elements of their previous lifestyle, and using their resources to best effect. Support and care encompasses the supply of care and support, availability of support in a variety of forms to meet diverse needs, affordable care, and protection to older people from abuse. Factors Affecting Quality of Life of Older People Good quality of life in old age is a realistic ambition for all. Early old age, sometimes called the Third Age, between 55 and 75 years old, is the phase of life between leaving the labour market and the onset of physical dependency. There are a number of factors that affect quality of life at this age. A research study carried out by Dr Blane (2003) concluded that quality of life for the affluent-healthy is higher than for the deprived-sick. Having control over when and when not to work has a significant bearing on quality of life. Then the quality and density of a person’s social network was more important than the number of people in the network. Importance of Intergenerational and Intragenerational Relationships to Quality of Life The term generation has a numerous contemporary meanings, incorporating biological, familial and social factors (Back, 1987). An intergenerational perspective (between and across generations) highlights the reciprocal obligations, rights and influences between different generations. An intragenerational perspective identifies similar age groups and the succession of individuals who are distinguished by the bounds of a society and set apart by time and common experience (Fredriksen, 1993). Historically, within the UK, there had been a strong tradition of the young learning from the old in their role as respected elders or through structures such as apprenticeship schemes and trade guilds (Hatton, 2002). Significance of intergenerational relationships is evident from a survey which reports that to the elderly, welfare of children and grandchildren is twice as more important than their own health and money (Roy, 1999). Older parents have always been providing financial support in the forms of donations, gifts and regular monetary contributions to their children. They are also important sources of instrumental support (shopping, cleaning, home maintenance, childcare) and emotional support (advice, validation) for their children (Bengtson, Rosenthal & Burton, 1990). Many elderly people continue to provide support for adult children and the provision of a home for one’s children can extend well beyond middle age (Evandrou, Falkingham, Rake & Scott, 2001). Living arrangements are a key dimension of quality of life and well-being in old age. Older people living alone are more likely to enter an institution than those living with other people (Breeze, Slogett & Fletcher, 1999). Involvement of older persons in local communities contributes to their quality of life, as well as to the functioning of the community. The relationship between different groups of older persons is therefore very crucial in maintaining the quality of life (UN-Economic and Social Council, 2002). Altered patterns of mortality and fertility have made intergenerational structures in the family more â€Å"top heavy† and vertically extended. While horizontal, intragenerational ties are shrinking, vertical ties across generations are more complex and durable than ever before in history (UN-Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005). Importance of social groups and networks in later part of life is quite evident from a research study carried out in Scotland (Philip, Gilbert, Mauthner and Phimister, 2003). The participant observations and questionnaires have provided useful insights into the levels and types of participation in social groups among older people in the study area. The report finds that there is high level of participation and involvement in social groups amongst older people (aged over 60). As a whole, respondents attended 68 wide-ranging types of groups including civic participation (e. g. local government), voluntary activities (e. g. Red Cross; Meals on Wheels), friendship, social, leisure, religious, cultural, heritage and special interest groups. Those aged in their seventies and early eighties were the most likely to be involved in social activities Another study summarises that older people preferred the company of others, had a higher level of contact with friends and lower levels of psychological problems (McKee, 2002). In 2002 around three in ten men aged 80 and over and nearly one in five women in England said they owned a mobile phone. Use of mobile phones and the Internet helps older people to remain independent by making it easier for them to communicate with their family and friends or to access public and commercial services (National Statistics, 2006). Conclusion Society in the UK is changing. More people are living longer in greater prosperity. In the next decade, the numbers over 50, over 65 and over 80 will all increase to levels never seen before. We need a coherent strategy to manage that demographic change. Elaborate and diligent plans are required to enable older persons to continue to participate fully in all aspects of life. For a better quality of life, we need to promote the development of a society for all ages through the strengthening of intergenerational and intragenerational solidarity. Young generations have responsibilities and a special role in building a society for all ages. Older generations have equal role to play.

Mandala And Sunyata Are Codependent - 1146 Words

The mandala and sunyata are codependent, as the mandala allows one to fully comprehend sunyata. However, in order to understand sunyata, one must first acknowledge and comprehend the Theravada Buddhist teachings. Teachings, such a dependent variation, the no self, and even impermanence, are also intertwined with both each other, the sunyata, and the mandala. Therefore, while both sunyata and the Theravada Buddhist teachings may be taught through the mandala, these teachings are crucial in demonstrating the sunyata. The mandala provides a religious experience through visualization and are often employed to dissociate a human from their ego and the egotistic perceptions humans tend to cling to. Creating a mandala takes a lot of time and†¦show more content†¦Just like the seed, various different elements, past practices, and studies throughout years and years were necessary for the creation of the seed. The creation of the seed and its journey into existence is similar to tha t of the mandala. Both creations took significant effort, an excessive amount of time, and the presence of the right elements to form the creation. Another Theravada Buddhist teaching used to understand sunyata, is anaatman, or the no self. To begin, anaatman explains that one does not recognize that everything is casually connected; rather, people cling to words such as â€Å"I† and â€Å"self,† believing they have a fixed personality. This is not the case as we do not have a fixed independent self rather, we exist in a constantly changing and advancing process. The mandala demonstrates anaatman because of the fact that it a tool used to transform behavior through psychic realization. As stated previously, the mandala is a design to connect the universe with human being’s consciousness and matter, representing a way to reach enlightenment. Because of this, the mandala should be viewed as a tool that can communicate, and even deliver enlightenment. While viewing the mandala, it works to bring you to experience a sacred world by striving to bring the human to the â€Å"manda† or its center or essence and works as a â€Å"la†