Nutrition in Infancy Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Nutrition in Infancy - Assignment Example After an assessment, the public nurse reveals no acute distress and normal signs as per the limit of age with the current length and weight of 68cm and 6.6 kg respectively. This paper will provide a detailed medical check-up of the review of systems, physical assessments and develop a care plan for the infant, including diagnosis, treatment, referral, education, and patient follow-up. The nine-month visit provides an opportunity for the healthcare provider to assess the child’s health and teach caretakers how to ensure their future health. It is important first to take the history from the parents/caregivers in order to first determine the medical history and evaluate any medications taken. In this case, examination of the nutrition is paramount to a child’s health as at this moment, children take a formula and soft foods. In order to determine the nutritional wellness of the child, a historical analysis of bowel movements is important. Babies are expected to have at least 2 bowel movements and wet their diapers 4-6 times in a day. Nursing diagnoses is characterized by psychosocial data, daily routines, and living patterns. Thus, medical history must take into consideration data collection of economic issues that directly or indirectly impact on the quality of an infant’s quality of daily living. At this stage, assessing the history of the development of the child would be important in determining their ability to talk, imitate any vocals, make movements with their legs, hands and bottom, pick and/or drop objects, play, show feelings and record any eruption of teeth, prompting the review of the child’s ears and eyes. The review of systems would include conducting a screening visual exam of the eyes to inspect and view the structural normality of the eye and its response to light. In addition, the ears should be screened to prove that the child demonstrates the

Ten Paintings of Romanticism Essay Example for Free

Ten Paintings of Romanticism Essay Romanticism has flourished in the years 1800’s to 1900’s. Romanticism in the arts particularly in the visual arts is characterized by a revolt against rationalism and classicism movement. The usual approach of the artist in their artwork is about imagination and subjectivity. Intense emotion and elusiveness is attributed to romanticism. Also, paintings in the romantic era are linked with mystical portrayal, symbolism, natured, and politics. For the purpose of giving a detailed description of paintings in the Romantic period of the arts, ten painting will be analyze and describe having qualities that are reflective of Romanticism. Napoleon on his throan, by Ingres is a painting in the romantic era because of the emphasis on the individual as Napoleon is the only human character in the painting. The painting suggests the political power of Napoleon as romantic artists are often politically and socially involved like Ingres. The throne is the symbol of Napoleon’s power as romanticism is very acquainted with symbolism. Jupiter and thetis, by Ingres is mythical as the characters were characters of the Greek mythology. The painting insinuates that a great multitude of imagination is used by the artist to depict such painting where as imagination is central among the artist of the romantic period. The frontal borderline of the painting is the same as the painting entitled â€Å"Napoleon on his throne†. Emotion is also evident in the painting, evident in Jupiter and Thetis is an intense emotion due to unique colors and contours. Napoleon crossing the Alps by Jacques Louis David is a painting that discusses a political matter. The painting has also displayed kinship with nature as one of the focused aspects of romanticism. The facial expression of Napoleon is indefinable as one of the characteristics of Romantic art is elusive images. The burial of the Sardine, by Goya is a painting which is full of symbolisms. The painting expresses a powerful sense of irony and sarcasm as the painting depicts the picture of mass hysteria which is again related to political issues as one of the aspect of romanticism period. The expression in the faces of the characters in the painting are displayed in a exact manner showing the uncanny joyfulness of the characters in the painting which is again a characteristic of romanticism in art which displays mystical images. Battle with clubs, by Goya contains images which is a symbol of the struggle between the monarchists and the liberals of the North Spain. It also tackles the political issue at that time as it portrays the civil war in Spain. The painting shows the intensity of the fight as the feet of the two men fighting with clubs are already buried in the ground but the fight still continues. Satan devouring one of his sons, by Goya is popularly called Saturn. It is an improvisation of Goya on one of the characters of mythology which is central in romanticism. It also tackles the morality of the act of Saturn which is connected to social reality. The gloomy and sinister image of the painting is an intense display of Saturn’s malevolence, the exhibition of intensity is again a part of romantic art. Elohim creating Adam is an artwork of Blake which refers to a mythical narrative which is a typical of a romantic art work. The tone and the color of the painting are also reflective of the romanticism movement in art. The images in the painting also evoke a great feeling of intensity. For Marat is a painting which depicts the political inclinations of Jacques- Louis David on politics which is insightful of the romantic era. It is also shows the melancholy of a death of man struggling (which is Jacques-Louis friend which is assassinated by a lady) for passion. However, the expression of the assassinated face of Marat is elusive of emotions. The painting is reflective of the political stance of the artist as it depicts the social realities of that time. The strong display of emotions of the painting is a romantic characteristic as it showcases death caused by a passionate insistence of principles. Definitely, the painting is considered to be under the Romantic era. The painting has also been named as the Pieta of the revolution for it has awakened the minds and hearts to struggle. Satan arousing rebel angels, by Blake contains images which are reflective of the Romanticism movement. The subject of the painting is about the political stance of Blake regarding the Bible. The subject is also of great mystery and the painting is executed with a great level of subjectivity and imagination as characters from the bible are involved. The shadings and colors of the painting is exhibited to invoke a mystic and dramatic mood. Napoleon Latvia is a painting that discusses political circumstances. The painting is about Napoleon’s conquest of Russia. The painting displays an emotion of great power as the colors are striking and intense and also a distinguishing mark of the romantic era. The approach is also subjective and highly imaginative. The painting has successfully portrayed the event and the temper that transpired during Napoleons conquest. Napoleon (sick people of) Jafa by Antoine Jean Gros, is a painting that portrays societal concerns. The colors represent a great inducement of a melodramatic style of shading. The approach used in the painting is also very imaginative. The painting fall under the romanticism era because it greatly depicts the issues of the society as it shows the visit of Napoleon to the sick people of Jaffa which are victims of the plague. References: 1. Honour, H. (1979). Romanticism. New York: Harper Row.

Neorealist Theory of US Politics

Neorealist Theory of US Politics Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics. Great powers, the main actors in the realists account, pay careful attention to how much economic and military power they have relative to each other. It is important not only to have an important amount of power, but also to make sure that no other state roughly shifts the balance of power in its favour. For realists, international politics is synonymous with power politics. They are, however, important differences among realists. The most basic divide is in the answer to the simple but important question: why do states want power? For classical realists  [1]  like Hans Morgenthau, the answer is human nature. Practically, everyone is born with a will to power, which effectively means that great powers are led by individuals who are determined to having their state dominate its rivals. Nothing can be done to change that force to be all-powerful  [2]  . For Neorealists or structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power. Instead, it is the structure or architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. In a system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes good sense for each state to be powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked. In essence, great powers are trapped because they have little choice but to compete with each other for power if they hope to survive  [3]  . Neorealist theories ignore cultural differences among states as well as differences in regime type, mainly because the international system creates the same basic incentives for all great powers. Whether a state is democratic or autocratic matters relatively little for how it acts towards other states. Nor does it matter much who is in charge of conducting a states foreign policy. Neorealists treat states as if they were black boxes: they are assumed to be alike, save for the fact that some states are more or less powerful than others.  [4]   There is a significant divide between structural realists, which is in the answer to a second question that concerns realists: how much power is enough? Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979) maintain that it is unwise for states to try to maximize their share of world power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power. The pursuit of hegemony, they argue, is especially imprudent. Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer (2001) take the opposite view; they maintain that it makes good strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to pursue hegemony. The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure ones own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival. In a widely discussed essay John Mearsheimer  [5]  (1993) use the neorealist argument of Waltz  [6]  (1979) and applies it to both the past and future. He says that neorealism has continued importance for explaining international relations: neorealism is a general theory that applies to other historical situations besides that of the Cold War. He also argues that neorealism can be employed to predict the course of international history beyond the Cold War. The question poses is: What would happen if the bipolar system were replaced by a multipolar system? This question can be justly discussed with the study of the last War in Iraq. Indeed, the Iraq case throws light on the determinants of war, exposing how far decisions are driven by systemic factors. Kenneth Waltzs defensive realist image of systemic constraints shaping a prudent defensive use of power does not appear to correspond to American behaviour. Offensive realism, predicated on the notion that great powers can never have enough power in an insecure world, might seem more relevant, but even this is doubtful: its main proponent, John J Mearsheimer (2001) views hegemony as merely regional and hegemons as acting as offshore balancers outside their own regions. Seeing the Iraq War as going well beyond that, he denied that it was necessary to US security (Mearsheimer and Walt 2003). So, ultimately, How the US invasion in Iraq can be interpreted from neorealists points of view? First, in order to answer, I will study the works of Waltz and Mearsheimer in identifying their similarities and their differences. Finally, I will apply their perspective to the US invasion of Iraq. Defensive Realism versus Offensive Realism: How much power is enough? The leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). Waltzs Theory of International Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. In Waltzs view the International relations theory is a neorealist theory that focuses centrally on the structure of the system. Actors are less important because structures compel them to act in certain ways. Structures more or less determine actions. According to Waltss neorealist theory, a basic feature of international relations is the decentralized structure of anarchy between sates. States are alike in all basic functional respects in spite of their different cultures or ideologies or constitutions or personnel, they all perform the same basics tasks. But the structure of the system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system units  [7]  . In other words, international change occurs when great powers rise and fall and the balance of power shits accordingly. A balance of powers between states can be achieved, but war is always a possibility in an anarchical system. Waltz distinguishes between bipolar systems, such as existed during the Cold War between The United States and the Soviet Union, and multipolar system, such as existed both before and after the Cold War. Waltz believes that bipolar systems are more stable and thus provide a better guarantee of peace and security than multipolar sys tems. With only two great powers, both can be expected to act to maintain the system  [8]  . That is because in maintaining the system they are maintaining themselves. According to that view, the Cold War was a period of international stability and peace. Waltz assumes that the fundamental concern of states is security and survival. He also assumes that the major problem of great power conflict is war, and that the major task of international relations among the great powers is that of peace and security. Nevertheless St ate leaders are prisoners of the structure of the state system and its determinist logic which dictates what they must do in their conduct of foreign policy. There is no room in Waltzs theory for foreign policymaking that is independent is the structure of the system. Waltzs image of the role of state leaders in conducting foreign policy comes close to being a mechanical image in which their choices are shaped by the international structural constraints that they face. Thus, Waltzs neorealist approach does not provide explicit policy guidance to state leaders as they confront the practical problems of world politics. That is presumably because they have little or no choice, owing to the confining international structu re in which they must operate. Waltz does address the question of the management of international affairs  [9]  . Waltzs argument is at base a determinist theory in which structure dictates policy. However, just beneath the surface of Waltzs neorealist text, and occasionally on the surface, there is recognition of the ethical dimension of international politics. For example, he operates with a concept of state sovereignty:To say that a state is sovereign means that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems  [10]  . For Waltz, all states are equal only in a formal-legal sense; they are unequal, often profoundly so, in a substantive or material sense. But that means that a norm of state exists which all states without exception are expected to observe in their relations with each other regardless of their substantive inequalities of power. Waltz also assumes that states are worth fighting for. That, too, indicates that neorealism is imbued with normative values: those of state security and survival. Waltz operates, as well, with a concept of the national interest: each states plots the course it thinks will best serve its interests  [11]  . For Waltz, however, the national interest seems to operate like an automatic signal commanding state leaders when and where to move. Waltz sees states as structures that respond to the impersonal constraints and dictates of the international system. Mearsheimer builds on Waltzs argument concerning the stability of bipolar systems as compared with multipolar systems  [12]  . These two configurations are considered to be the main structural arrangements of power that are possible among independent states. As indicated Waltz claims that bipolar systems are superior to multipolar systems because they provide greater international stability and thus greater peace and security. There are three basics reasons why bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful. First, the number of great-power conflicts is fewer, and that reduces the possibilities of great-power war. Second, it is easier to operate an effective system of deterrence because fewer great powers are involved. Finally because only two powers dominate the system the chances of miscalculation and misadventure are lower. They are fewer fingers on the trigger  [13]  . In short the two rivals superpowers can keep their eye steadily fixed on each other without the distractio n and confusion that would occur if there a larger number of great powers, as was the case prior to 1945 and arguably has been the case since 1990  [14]  . The question Mearsheimer  [15]  poses is: What would happen if the bipolar system were replaces by a multipolar system? Mearsheimer  [16]  that the demise of the bipolar War order and the emergence of a multipolar world will produce highly undesirable return to the bad old ways of anarchy and instability and even renewed danger of international conflict, crises, and possibly war. Mearsheimer differs from Waltz whom characterizes as a defensive realist: someone who recognizes that states must and seek power in order to be secure and to survive, but who believe that excessive power is counterproductive, because it provokes hostile alliances by other states. For Waltz, it does not make sense, therefore, to strive for excessive power beyond that is necessary for security and survival. Mearsheimer speaks of Waltzs theory as defensive realism. Mearsheimer agrees with Waltz that anarchy compels states to compete for power. However, he argues that states seek hegemony, that they are ultimately more aggressive that Waltz portrays them as being. The goal for a country, such as United States, is to dominate the entire system, because only in that way could it rest assured that no other state or combination of states would even think about going to war against the United States. In the Western Hemisphere, for example, the United States has long been by far the most powerful state. No other state, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, would even think about threatening or employing armed force against the United States. All major powers strive for that ideal situation. But the planet is too big for global hegemony.The oceans are huge barriers. No state would have the necessary power. Mearsheimer therefore argues that states only become the hegemon in their own region of the world  [17]  . Regional hegemons can see to it, however, that there are no other regional hegemons in any other part of the world. They can prevent the emergence and existence of a peer competitor. According to Mearsheimer, thatis what the United States is trying to ensure. That is because a peer competitor might try to interfere in a regional hegemons sphere on influence and control. According to Mearsheimer, all states want to become regional hegemons. That is why he refers to his theory as offensive realism which rests on the assumptions that great powers are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, wit hegemony as their final goal  [18]  . There has always been conflict, there is conflict, and there will be conflict over power. And there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent it. This is why the title of one of his books is The tragedy of Great Power Politics. In sum, there is disagreement among structural realists about how much power states should aim to control. Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power and should do so whenever it seems feasible. States should maximize power, and their ultimate goal should be hegemony, because that is the best way to guarantee survival. While defensive realists recognize that the international system creates strong incentives to gain additional increments of power, they maintain that it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. That would amount to overexpansion of the worst kind. States, by their account, should not maximize power, but should instead strive for what Kenneth Waltz calls an appropriate amount of power  [19]  ; The War in Iraq and the neorealists : a troublesome case States operate in a self-help world almost always according to their own self-interest and do not subordinate their interests to the interests of other states, or to the interests of the so-called international community. The reason is simple: it pays to be selfish in a self-help world.  [20]   The decision made by the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 can both be fit into neorealist theory, while some things also complicate neorealist theory. Realists believe that power is the controlling force in politics, and especially international politics, and power is defined as the ability to control outcomes. This is a hard thing to prove but the US certainly have shown that it is able to control outcomes, when US forces invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN or most other nations. Other countries like France also tried hard to persuade the US not to invade Iraq, which is also a sign of wanting to control outcomes. However, the US turned out to be a lot more powerful in this case. Mearsheimers theory of offensive realism states that the unrelenting pursuit of power means that great powers are inclined to look for opportunities to alter the distribution of world power in their favour. This means that the US, which is by far the greatest power in the West, will always be looking for opportunities to gain even more power at the expense of other states. Neorealist theory can explain the Iraq war in 2003 by saying that the US saw invading Iraq as an opportunity to gain even more power at the expense of foremost Iraq  [21]  . The invasion of Iraq can also be seen as a way for the US to prove to the world how powerful it is by not letting the US be taunted by Saddam Hussein, and by defying the opinion of the UN and other states  [22]  . The invasion of Iraq can be analysed as a strategy for gaining power or as a strategy for checking aggressors. By using war as a way of increasing their power, the US can exploit Iraqs economy for their own benefit and gain power by confiscating natural resources such as oil and foodstuffs  [23]  . Also, the US can gain strategic important land by gaining an ally in the new Iraq, which the US has helped rebuild. War has been used as a way of checking aggressors, which is basically a way of preventing other states from gaining power at their own expense. In reality this is done by deterring the aggressor, who in this case is Iraq. When the US did not think that Iraq was deterrable they had no other choice than to invade Iraq, according to offensive realism. This is because the structure of international politics forces states to be aggressive in order to survive. Before and during the 2003 Iraq war the US gave the impression that they were threatened by Iraq, which means that they were trying to deter Iraq, which was an aggressor. However, looking at the image as being just and democratic that the US clearly wants the world to think of them, it is hard to imagine that they would say anything different from what they did, no matter what their motives were. The conditions of international politics today for countries in the West demands them to be just and democratic or at least to appear that way and no state leader would say anything that could not be explained as being just and democratic, because it is the rules of survival in international politics today. This does not mean that states today in the West are only just and democratic, because they can do whatever they want to within reason. It just means that whatever they do will have to be camouflaged as just and democratic. However, the invasion of Iraq is hard to explain with offensive realism in some ways. According to offensive realism, the central aim of American foreign policy is to be the Hegemon in the Western Hemisphere and have no rival hegemon in Europe or Northeast Asia. How can offensive realism then explain that the US is invading a country in the Middle East, because this region should not interest the US enough to want to invade a country in other regions than Europe and Northeast Asia?  [24]  Mearsheimer has trouble seeing why the US have troops in Europe and Northeast Asia, and argues that they should be sent back, and therefore it is even harder to explain why they should have troops in a region in which the US government does not aspire to be a hegemon. Some of the most prominent realist scholars Mearsheimer and Waltz actually argued against invading Iraq, because they believed that it was unnecessary. All state leaders are rational according to realist theory, which means that Saddam Hussein is also rational although the US government kept arguing that he was irrational and therefore you could not reason with him  [25]  . Because realist theory holds that Saddam Hussein, like all state leaders, are rational, he is also deterrable because economic sanctions and threats of massive retaliation will always work on him, and they have in the past, realists argue. Therefore, neorealist theory tells us, that Saddam Hussein is not as big a threat to the US as the US government claimed and there was no reason to invade Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is rational he would acknowledge that Iraq is a weak state, and would never be foolish enough to attack such a powerful state as the US, because it is not wise to attack a state that has nuclear wea pons regardless of whether you have WMD or not. Conclusion It is impossible to create a theory about international politics, that is bullet-proof, because there will always be an element of unpredictability, which is unavoidable when humans interact. Neorealist theory has been able to predict the US foreign policy because a structural argument: the unipolar system and its instability. However, when the system level ceases to be the major constraint on behaviour, as expected by neorealism, there is much more scope for domestic determinants to drive policy  [26]  . Moreover, the war demonstrates the dangers of unipolarity in which the once-benign hegemon becomes malign  [27]  . It is no accident that small powers have traditionally put the highest value on international law and the UN and that the world hegemon uniquely deprecates the latter as unwanted constraints on its freedom to do as it pleases; their failure in the Iraq case makes for a less secure world for those at the bottom of the power hierarchy.

Manhattan Project :: essays research papers

On August 2nd 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to utilize a rare element, U-235, which might in turn be used to build a weapon. This weapon would be capable of power totally beyond the scope of mans’ vision. Ironically and sadly, it was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known only then as â€Å"The Manhattan Project.† Through the harness and development of the atom’s power, the Manhattan Project stands as a marker for man’s passage into an exciting and also terrifying age of nuclear power.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to quick research and production that would yield a workable atomic bomb. â€Å"Over the course of six years, ranging from 1939 to 1945, more than two billion dollars were spent on the Manhattan Project. An additional seventy-six million dollars were spent by the Army Air Forces on Project SILVERPLATE. [ Project SILVERPLATE covered the modification of 46 B-29 bombers in support of the Manhattan Project, trained the personnel of the 509th composite bombing group, and provided logistical support for units based at Tinian Island, launching point for the attacks on Japan.]† (www.infoseek.com, 2001) The formulas for refining Uranium and putting together a working bomb were created and seen to their ends by some of the greatest minds of our time. Among these people to unleashed the power of the atomic bomb was J. Robert Oppenheimer. â€Å"J. Robert Oppenheimer was born in New York City on April 22, 1904. After graduating from Harvard and studying under Ernest Rutherford at Cambridge University, Oppenheimer received his Ph.D. in Germany in 1925. In 1929, he returned to the United States to teach at the University of California Berkeley and at Cal Tech.† (Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1998) In June 1942, Oppenheimer was appointed scientific director of the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer was the major force behind the Manhattan Project. He literally ran the show and saw to it that all of the great minds working on this project made their brainstorms work. He oversaw the entire project from its conception to its completion. Finally the day came when all at Los Alamos would find out whether or not â€Å"The Gadget† was either going to be the colossal dud of the century or perhaps change mankind forever.

Animal and Human Nature in Steinbecks Of Mice and Men Essay

Animal and Human Nature in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The relationship between animal nature and human nature in John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is a major theme throughout the work. Lennie and Candy are connected with animals via their various individual characteristics, such as physical appearance, mental capacity, or emotional maturity. Other characters, such as Curley and Carlson, demonstrate their animal-like natures in their interactions with others. Despite the obvious connection between the human natures and animal natures of the characters in the work, some of the characters attempt to rise above their bestial nature by dreaming and seeking companionship. Lennie is perhaps the most obvious example of an animal-like character. The very first description of Lennie is as "a huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, with wide, sloping shoulders; and he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws" (Steinbeck 2). This opening description of Lennie immediately connects him with a large animal, and for the rest of the novel, whenever his name is mentioned, the reader instinctively pictures a big, bear-like man. Lennie is also likened to a dog, just a few pages later, when he is compared to a "terrier who doesn't want to bring a ball to its master" (Steinbeck 9). This connection is further emphasized when, at the novelà ­s end, Lennie is shot with the same gun and in the same way as Candy's dog was shot earlier in the novel. Lennie is also connected with animals in his mental capacity and preferences. His "simplemindedness as well as his attraction to animals, especially the rabbits and the puppy, would seem to fix him as animal-like" (Johnson 16). Candy is identified... ...to live together as a family. Candy and Crooks eagerly volunteer to join George and Lennie in their dream in hopes that they can contribute to the welfare of the group and act as one unit, one family. George already shows this kind of selflessness throughout the book in his looking out for Lennie, and, likewise, Lennie's looking out for George. These characters escape their primal, animalistic tendencies to fend for themselves and chose to help each other. Of Mice and Men presents many interesting connections between the animal natures and human natures of its characters. Though most characters display characteristics that could qualify them as bestial, only a few exhibit the drive to rise above this base level of existence and distinguish themselves from their animal nature.    Works Cited: Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men. New York: Penguin Books, 1937.

Music and Fashion

Subculture is a word which implies liberty of creativeness, liberty of appearance, ease and liberty of a selected model for getting pleasure. In addition, to resolve the contradictions of forefathers and parents culture, where forefathers and parents culture fails to provide a workable ideology for the next generation it usually takes the form of rituals, fashion and music. However, there is an important connection between fashion and subculture, and it is clothes that the young generations wear in the street, the new ideas of the rock bands, the glittering clothes in the clubs  Ã‚   have influenced a lot fashion design industry.According to Brian â€Å"The transformation rave culture from underground, and frequently illegal, dance parties organized by electronic music lovers to highly publicized popular concerts sponsored by local radio stations and major music labels was predictable, if not wholly inevitable. After all, part of capitalism's appeal lies in its ideological flexibi lity–its capacity to embrace transgressive subculture, repackage it, and sell it as the latest stylistic innovation.Though predictable, rave culture's evolution was and continues to be anything but simple and straightforward. It entails a set of complex negotiations surrounding the meanings of artist, authorship, and authenticity. It reflects deeply fought rhetorical/ideological battles around communalism and commercialism, performance and product, and sharing and spectacle†. (Brian, pg, 249+)Mainly, Raves attract people who belong to the middle-class and are in their mid-teens to late-twenties. Normally, the average age of people at most of the rave events is 18 to 25 years. More interestingly, the average age of the Ravers increased due to its popularity among all age group people.Rave scene has its own culture instead of just a party term. Vivacious group of like-minded young individuals gather in one platform and dance in order to join rave communities. The rave tra dition has become popular among New York youth.In this regard, one community has developed a Ravers website and named it (www.Raveclick.com). The primary motive behind the creation of this website was to urge youth to adopt rave culture. With the advent of this website, music and fashion in New York have gone out of their track. For example, the outfits and style of music were completely changed. Rockers have begun to perform electronic hip-hop music which amused ravers in dance parties.In rave parties, teenagers dance to electronic music from dusk to dawn. Old scholars treat the rave as a hypertext of delight and disappearance. In the period of 1989 to 1992, rave culture began to flourish into a global phenomenon on grassroots basis. In 1980 Rave people were first traveled to attend the rave parties, usually at that time the parties were arranged in home basis. However, by the mid of 1990 major companies were started to sponsor rave parties on commercial basis.In subculture trends, fashion dressing of teenagers are very interesting and unluckily very little studied. In this regard, if we look imaginative and psychological nature of fashion dressing we will find it very interesting, For instance, style of haircuts, clothes and accessories, and make up etc.According to Nayak, â€Å"the excessive style of Charver spilled over from fabrics to music. Many Charver Kids favored Rave and Jungle music, sounds that were historically tied to the mutating patterns of cultural syncretism formed in British inner cities. Interestingly, some of the young people who had spoke disparagingly about Charver style in one context were willing to admit that they were ‘a bit Charver’ in their tastes towards music and certain elements of fashion. Thus, James admitted liking ‘Rave, Coliseum kinda thing’ and was willing to take on a Charver identity at certain moments†. (Nayak, pg, 16)More interestingly, among the rave community, characteristics of life such as gender, age, sexual orientation, race, dress and many other things do not matter. Ravers are the people who come out at night, for fun. Nonetheless with regard of subculture context, every one in the rave community wants himself or herself to mark some distinct point in his or her individual personal characteristics by doing something different from others. With respect of this, before joining the rave party, raver eyes aglow with anticipation, body curious for foreign rhythms, glittering shoes encompass feet hungry for dancing these are some fantasies which always are the primary context of a Raver.Youth culture denotes to a homogenous belief of teenagers as doing similar things and being dealt in a similar fashion and plays down aspects of distinctions. Generally, this idea was popular with United States sociologists in the period of 50s and 60s mainly those of the social functionalism persuasion. For instance, in 1964 Talcott debated that although youth culture, disconcer ting for young generation, but in reality it performed certain useful functions for society. It was a security valve, a way of letting off steam for young generation caught up in the period of doubt and indistinct social roles.In this regard, we have been noticed so many times that in some communities families tend to have closer interaction with teenagers and they seem so intent on being different to their forefathers and parents. On the other hand, in some communities young age children may intentionally choose a specific subculture group in order to reinforce their independence and even opposition to their family culture. It has been observed that, children who belong to upper class communities have more disposable income resources to spend in entertainment, sport and some other related activities. Consequently, while they indulge themselves in these activities they face a diverse society and adopt certain things from other which is sometimes considered a primary root of subcultu re society.According to Wilson â€Å"The rave issue is contextualized through a thorough examination of the history of rave scenes. Not surprisingly, Wilson discovers that rave culture has its roots in disco, pre-disco, warehouse parties and gay clubs in New York City, Chicago, Detroit and Britain. More interestingly, however, is Wilson's scrupulous documentation of previous scholarship of the heyday of rave. He reveals that while some scholars were claiming the libidinal space of the rave dance floor as an anti-patriarchal realm of resistance, others were decrying its elitism and upper-middle class tendency toward exclusion and clique formation. So the question becomes, does rave culture alter and question reality, or does it confirm it.† (Wilson, pg, 224)The most controversial issue of rave subculture is excessive use of drugs and from the very outset of the rave parties it has been closely associated with it. Ravers in dance parties usually take dugs as to get more amuseme nt. More interestingly, in some communities beside alcohol drinks drugs are the primary motive of joy and happiness in rave parties.Often Ravers have embraced deviation and exoticism with respect of people, music, and everything. In addition, different cultures have established because of rave offers a lack of hierarchy and the pure sense of progression that are significant for the social and emotional development of a particular group.As discussed above, drugs and violence have been known as an element of the rave subculture but it is very difficult to judge the degree of their impact on young generation. However, curious youth have already embraced and hence encouraged many of the aesthetic hallmarks of rave culture.Conclusionâ€Å"According to Huq Rave could be seen as the last subculture, signifying either most recent or even as those pronouncing the end of youth culture contend, and the final one. In many ways it is cause and effect of youth culture coming of age. For the danc e music generation computer technology, foreign travel and drugs have largely been normalized as they have grown up with all three†.  Ã‚   (Huq, 2006, pg, 108)Ravers say that Rave culture express respect, peace and love, nevertheless, some people who do not wish to join this upstream subculture, can mark numerous negative stereotypes of raves. In this context, one must recognize the diversities and differences as well as similarities between the today’s and past generation youth. However, in order to find out the concept of subculture is valid or not this area needs more study. In this regard, one can say that awkward fashion and dance in mainstream youth which bring them together in one platform may be a good idea to share their own life beliefs culture, social customs and so forth.On the other hand, as we have discussed earlier that in ravers gathering Ravers frequently take drugs to boost their stamina and to mark some distinct cultural values among others a clash of individualism may occur in respond to other behavior and personal nature. In the end, one can say that not every thing in today’s upstream youth is bad and the birth of subculture fashion and music presenting a modern image of the world.Works CitedBrian L. Ott, Mixed Messages, Resistance and Reappropriation in Rave Culture, Western Journal of Communication. Volume: 67. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 249+.Huq Rupa, Pop Arts / Pop Culture, (2006),Nayak Anoop, Race, Place and Globalization, Youth Cultures in a Changing World. New York. Publication, Year: 2003 page nuber (16)Wilson Brian, Fight, Flight Or Chill: Subcultures, Youth, And Rave In The Twenty-first Century, McGill-Queen's University Press 0-7735-3061-4, Paper 224 pp. (n.d.)

Corporal of Marines Essay

Corporal of Marines BY Jkid43 What It Means To Be a Corporal of Marines A Corporal of United States Marine Corps had duty and responsibility that they carry out and sever on a day to day base. A Corporal is the lowest as a Noncommissioned Officer in the Marines Corps. A Corporal helps establish good order and discipline for their Marines. Corporals are held accounted for their and their Marines action. As Corporal of Marines they lead their Marines with firmness, fairness, and dignity. Corporals should have confidence, communicate, and good decision making. Corporal makes timely decision not only in combat, but in garrison oo. A Corporal is responsible for their self, along for their Marines. As Corporals their actions and decisions reflects the mission and welfare of their Marines. As NCO, Corporals must accept the responsible of their leadership roles. Corporals as leaders must understand his roles and Marines. For Corporal they must know their Marines comparability, weakness, and effeteness. Corporal is also responsible for their Marines actions. As NCO, Corporals hold accountable for the action their Marines do good or bad. Corporals serve as mentors for theirs Marines and should know their Marines. Which allow Corporal to make decisions base on their Marines abilities. Corporals also are responsible for the well-being and welfare of their Marines. Corporals should insure that their Marine is taken care on and off duty. To ensure if a Marine have an issue that they take the necessary action to ensure marine problem is resolve. Corporals needs to ensure that their Marines have necessary things need for accomplish the mission that their tasks with. Corporals are also responsible for the development and mentors for their Marines. Corporals should ensure that their Marines are challenged and motivated to the best of ability. A Corporal duty as a NCO is to enforce the rules and regulations on a daily base in the Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ. Corporals must understand, follows, and enforce the IJCMJ for their Marines. Corporal have a wide range of Jobs among the very wide range of thing Marines do, but their essential duty is to supervise their work and maintain discipline for their Marines. Corporal must ensure that they understand any tasks giving to them. Corporal should also ensure that they have the necessary plan and executing to accomplish the mission. Corporal should get feedback from their senior leader for guides and development to ensure they can leads the Marines better. Corporal’s duty is to ensure that their Marine is properly trained for any type of mission given to them. When training the Marines, Corporals should ensure that the Marines have their proper equipment, food, water and mind- set when training. Corporals must understand the safety and well-being of their Marine. Ensure that their Marine is healthy mentality, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Corporal duty is also establish good communicates with their Marines. Corporals need to ensure that their marine understand and can accomplish any tasks give to them and supervise to the standard set by the Corporals. The Corporal superiors. This includes the health of each Marine, supply requirements and any other need to ensure the Marines are prepared for any situation. Overall Corporals have a lot of responsible and duties that they must carry out. That core values honor, courage and commitment is emplaced in their Marine, and along themselves. Corporals are to set the example for their Marines emulate. Corporals are to hold themselves to a high stand also.