Free Essays - Ozymandias by Percy Shelley :: Ozymandias Essays

Ozymandias by Percy Shelley Daniel 4:37: "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways justice. And those who walk in pride He is able to put down." Shelley tells us about this statue of the great King Ozymandias, and engraved on his pedestal reads: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, Look on my Works, ye Mighty and despair!" We read that passage and immediately think of the arrogance and pride that this man must of had. "Look on my Works, ye Mighty and despair!" Works is capitalized as if it deserved reverence and awe. Shelley also tells us that this great statute has been shattered: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desart. . . . . Near them, on the sand Half sunk a shattered visage lies," So we imagine these pair of legs on a pedestal in the middle of a desert and look to the ground to find the rest of the sculpture shattered into pieces. We read the engraving on the pedestal and look around to see his works so that we can "despair" and we find that "Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away." I can't help but laugh at the whole situation. Nature has smitten man. Nature won out in the end. Man tried to build a huge empire and then mocked all of natures work and even asks that all "despair" because who could beat his work. Nature has in the end won out and we sit and laugh with nature as Ozymandias's face is in the ground, shattered with a frown half sunken in sand. Nature's arrogance is also evident too though. Nature destroyed man's Work and leaves us the pedestal to read. Nature kept the pedestal as a sign for all of us: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, Look on my Works, ye Mighty and despair." Now replace the name Ozymandias with Nature. "My name is Nature, King of Kings, Look on my Works, ye Mighty and despair." We can replace Ozymandias with Nature because Nature won out in the end. Nothing that Ozymandias accomplished survived. Nature survived and destroyed all that man had done.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has become a metaphor for 21st-century security concerns. Although nuclear weapons have not been used since the end of World War II, their influence on international security affairs is pervasive, and possession of WMD remains an important divide in international politics today (Norris 61).The nuclear postures of the former Cold War rivals have evolved more slowly than the fast-breaking political developments of the decade or so that has elapsed since the former Soviet Union collapsed. Nevertheless, some important changes have already taken place. By mutual consent, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 was terminated by the United States and Russia, which have agreed to modify their nuclear offensive force posture significantly through a large reduction in the number of deployed delivery systems. Nuclear weapons are no longer at the center of this bilateral relationship.Although the two nations are pursuing divergent d octrines for their residual nuclear weapons posture, neither approach poses a threat to the other. The structure, but not the detailed content, of the future U.S. nuclear posture was expressed in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which established a significant doctrinal shift from deterrence to a more complex approach to addressing the problem of proliferated WMD.The Russian doctrinal adaptation to the post-Cold War security environment is somewhat more opaque. The government appears to be focused on developing and fielding low-yield weapons that are more suitable for tactical use, though the current building of new missiles and warheads may be associated with new strategic nuclear payloads as well. Despite the diminished post ­Cold War role of nuclear weapons in the United States, the cumulative deterioration of Russia's conventional military force since 1991 has actually made nuclear weapons more central to that government's defense policy.The end of the adversarial relati onship with the Soviet Union (and later, the Russian Federation) had to be taken into account in the NPR. The current nuclear posture is evolving in a manner parallel to the modernization of the U.S. non-nuclear military establishment. In stark contrast to Cold War ­era military planning, the 21st century is likely to be characterized by circumstances in which the adversary is not well known far in advance of a potential confrontation.The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is adjusting to these new circumstances by developing highly capable and flexible military forces that can adapt to the characteristics of adversaries as they appear. This makes the traditional path to modernization through investment in weapons systems as the threat emerges economically infeasible. Modern information technology lets the military change the characteristics of its flexible weapons and forces in much less time than it would take to develop whole new weapons systems. Thus, DOD is attempting to create a military information system: the integrated effect of command-control-communications-computation-intelligence-surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR). This system is inherently more flexible for adapting to changes in the threat environment.WMD and the means to deliver them are mature technologies, and knowledge of how to create such capabilities is widely distributed. Moreover, the relative cost of these capabilities declined sharply toward the end of the 20th century. Today, the poorest nations on earth (such as North Korea and Pakistan) have found WMD to be the most attractive course available to meet their security needs (Lieggi 2). Proliferation of WMD was stimulated as an unintended consequence of a U.S. failure to invest in technologies such as ballistic missile defense that could have dissuaded nations from investing in such weapons.The United States' preoccupation with deterring the Soviet Union incorporated the erroneous assumption that success in that arena would deter proliferation elsewhere (Barnaby 7). This mistake was compounded by the perverse interaction between defense policy and arms control in the 1990s. Misplaced confidence was lodged in a network of multilateral agreements and practices to prevent proliferation that contributed to obscuring rather than illuminating what was happening. Confidence placed in the inspection provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for example, obscured efforts to obtain knowledge of clandestine WMD programs. NPT signatories were among those nations with clandestine WMD programs.Without a modernization of defense policy, the ready availability of WMD-related technology will converge with their declining relative cost and a fatally flawed arms control structure to stimulate further proliferation in the 21st century. The process whereby WMD and ballistic missile technology has proliferated among a group of nations that otherwise share no common interests are likely to become the template for 21st-century proliferation.The scope of this problem was recognized in part as a result of a comprehensive review of intelligence data in 1997 ­1998 by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (the Rumsfeld Commission). This recognition swiftly evolved into a set of significant policy initiatives that responded to changes in the international security environment. The arms control arrangements most closely identified with the adversarial relationship with the former Soviet Union were passà ©. In 1999 the Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the United States and Russia ended the 1972 ABM Treaty and agreed to jettison the START process, which kept nuclear deployments at Cold War levels in favor of much deeper reductions in offensive forces in 2002.U.S. policy began to evolve in response to these developments. The incompatibility between the Cold War legacy nuclear posture and the 21st-century security environment stimulated a search for approaches to modernize policies pertinent to nuclear weapons. In response to statutory direction, the Bush administration published the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, the National Defense Strategy of the United States, and the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. Taken together, these documents constitute the most profound change in U.S. policy related to nuclear weapons since the Eisenhower administration (Krepon 1).The unique capabilities of nuclear weapons may still be required in some circumstances, but the range of alternatives to them is much greater today. The evolution of technology has created an opportunity to move from a policy that deters through the threat of massive retaliation to one that can reasonably aspire to the more demanding aim–to dissuade.If adversary WMD systems can be held at risk through a combination of precision non-nuclear strike and active defense, nuclear weapons are less necessary (Alb right 2). By developing a military capability that holds a proliferators’ entire WMD posture at risk rather than relying solely on the ability to deter the threat or use of WMD after they have been developed, produced, and deployed, the prospects for reducing the role of WMD in international politics are much improved.The 21st-century proliferation problem creates a set of targets significantly different from those that existed during the Cold War. Few targets can be held at risk only by nuclear weapons, but the ones that are appropriate may require different characteristics and, in many circumstances, different designs than those currently in the nuclear stockpile. The nature of the targets and the scope of the potential threat also alter the character of the underlying scientific, engineering, and industrial infrastructure that supports the nuclear weapons posture.   This research paper will therefore seek to discuss the problem of nuclear devices or WMDs (as they are pre sently termed) and try to address to current policy issues surrounding the matter.RESEARCH OUTLINE:INTRODUCTION:a.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   what is the problem surrounding nuclear threats in the 21st centuryb.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   what are the recent developments surrounding this issuec.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   what solutions have been successful in addressing these problemBODY:a.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   who are nuclear threatsb.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   what has been done to stopc.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   What can be done?d.)  Ã‚  Ã‚   What can the US do? What can the UN do?CONCLUSION:References:Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, â€Å"Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2006,† Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 62. no. 3 (2006): 61.Stephanie Lieggi, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, â€Å"Going Beyond the Stir: the strategic realities of China's No First Use policy,† Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_70.html (accessed June 30, 2006).Frank Barnaby and Shaun Barnie, Thinking the Unthinkable: Japanese nuclear power and proliferation in East Asia (Oxford, UK: Oxford Research Group and Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, 2005): 7†³8.George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.)Michael Krepon, Rodney W. Jones & Ziad Haider eds., â€Å"Escalation Control & the Nuclear Option in South Asia,† The Henry L. Stimson Center, September 2004, http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=191, (May 2005).David Albright and Cory Hinderstein, â€Å"Uncovering the Nuclear Black Market: Working Toward Closing Gaps in the International Nonproliferation Regime,† Institute for Science & International Security, July 2004, http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/ nuclear_black_market.html, (May 2005).Text of â€Å"Export Controls on Goods, Technologies, Material, and Equipment Related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and their Delivery Systems Act, 2004,† Published in Gazette of Pakistan, 27 September 2004, Cited at, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/ Infcircs/2004/infcirc636.pdf, (May 2005).Michael Krepon and Chris Gagne eds., â€Å"The Stability-Instability Paradox: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Brinksmanship in South Asia,† The Henry L. Stimson Center, June 2001, http://www.stimson.org/pubs.cfm?ID=1, (May 2005).Feroz Hassan Khan, â€Å"The Independence-Dependence Paradox: Stability Dilemmas in South Asia,† Arms Control Association, October 2003, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_10/Khan_10.asp, (May 2005).Ashley J. Tellis, India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal, (Santa Monica: Rand, 2001.)

Miranda V. Arizona

Court Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda? v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart, Supreme Court of the United States, 1966. Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants. Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel.Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule that states all evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court and the? Gideon? rule that states that all felony defendants have the right to an attorney while prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was false, and he deserved a new trial. Facts: In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station for being accu sed in a sexual assult case.Once identified by the victim he was taken into an interrogation room where he was to give his confession but Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. He did though, sign a typed disclaimer that stated he had â€Å"full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me,† and that he had knowingly waived those rights. Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled.Finding (Holding) of the Court: ? This case held that government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Reasoning: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements from secure interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of routine defenses. The Court noted that â€Å"the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented† and that â€Å"the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. The Court specifically outlined the importance of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during interrogations. Dissenting Opinions: Justice Tom Clark argued that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution would apply to interrogations. There is not enough evidence to demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here. The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan also argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. J.Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination. Justice Byron White argued that there is no historical suppo rt for broadening the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to include the rights that the majority extends in their decision. The majority is making new law with their holding. Legal Terms: self- incrimination-the? act? of? incriminating? oneself? or? exposing? oneself? to? prosecution, especially? by? giving? evidence? or? testimony Interrogation- to? ask? questions? of? (a? erson),? sometimes? to? seek? answersor? information? that? the? person? questioned? considers? personalor? secret. Implications: Miranda v. Arizona established the importance of informing defendants of their legal rights before they are arrested in order to ensure due process.? The? Miranda vs. Arizona? case was significant because it established that many Americans did/do not know their rights granted to them by the Bill of Rights, especially those pertaining to police investigation and trial, and that when arrested people have the right to be informed of these very significant rights.?The Court decided a conf ession is? involuntary? unless the person is clearly informed of his or her right to remain silent, to have an attorney present during questioning, and have an attorney provided free if he can’t afford one. Miranda didn't have a lawyer present when questioned and wasn't aware this was an option; therefore, his confession was excluded from evidence and the conviction was overturned.?

president clinton essays

president clinton essays President Clinton recently visited Mexico. While there, he met with PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) president Ernesto Zedillo. The PRI is the political party in power. It has been in power for over 60 years and has never lost a presidential election. Is the PRI the true expression of the democratic will of the people of Mexico, or a totalitarian dictatorship? In 1968 Mexican students protested the PRI government and army. Over 300 students were murdered. On January 1st 1994, a group of Mayan Indians calling themselves the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) rose up in arms to protest the same government and army. This paper will explore the history of the PRI, the 1968 student massacre, and the formation of the EZLN. By examining this part of Mexican history, this paper will show direct links between governmental corruption, the lack of democracy, the intolerance of social protest, and the necessity for the oppressed to move towards armed struggle. In 1924 Plutarco Calles was the president of Mexico. He was the founder and organizer of the P.N.R.(National Revolutionary Party), which later changed its name to the PRI. Calles was a Masonic anti-clerical president, who closed many churches and deported a number of priest and nuns. Calles portrayed himself as a socialist, but it was a front. Vincent Padgett writes, as the money poured in, all those at the top embarked upon a pattern of conspicuous consumption in fine houses, luxuries cars, clothing, and jewelry which marked them as something totally apart from the rank and file they professed to serve(30). Calles was the president of Mexico until 1928, but was so powerful that he continued to run the country behind the scenes. Padgett also writes, He [Calles] picked a relatively obscure man, Pascual Ortiz Rubio, as the PNRs candidate to succeed Portes Gil at the end of the provisional presidency, and arranged a lopsided victor over t...

Bacteriophage Life Cycle Animation

Bacteriophage Life Cycle Animation Bacteriophages are viruses that infect​ bacteria. A bacteriophage can have a protein tail attached to the capsid (protein coat that envelopes the genetic material), which is used to infect the host bacteria. All About Viruses Scientists have long sought to uncover the structure and function of viruses. Viruses are unique they have been classified as both living and nonliving at various points in the history of biology. A virus particle, also known as a virion, is essentially a nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) enclosed in a protein shell or coat. Viruses are extremely small, approximately 15 - 25 nanometers in diameter. Virus Replication Viruses are intracellular obligate parasites, which means that they cannot reproduce or express their genes without the help of a living cell. Once a virus has infected a cell, it will use the cells ribosomes, enzymes, and much of the cellular machinery to reproduce. Viral replication produces many progeny that leave the host cell to infect other cells. Bacteriophage Life Cycle A bacteriophage reproduces by one of two types of life cycles. These cycles are the lysogenic life cycle and the lytic life cycle. In the lysogenic cycle, bacteriophages reproduce without killing the host. Genetic recombination occurs between the viral DNA and the bacterial genome as the viral DNA is inserted into the bacterial chromosome. In the lytic life cycle, the virus breaks open or lyses the host cell. This results in the death of the host. Bacteriophage Life Cycle Animation Below are animations of the lytic life cycle of a bacteriophage.Animation AThe bacteriophage attaches to the cell wall of a bacterium.Animation BThe bacteriophage injects its genome into the bacterium.Animation CThis animation shows the replication of the viral genome.Animation DBacteriophages are released by lysis.Animation ESummary of the entire lytic life cycle of a bacteriophage.

Chemical Decomposition Reaction

Chemical Decomposition Reaction A chemical decomposition reaction or analysis reaction is one of the most common types of chemical reactions. In a decomposition reaction a compound is broken into smaller chemical species.AB → A B In some cases, the reactant breaks into its component elements, but a decomposition may involve breakdown into any smaller molecules. The process may occur in a single step or multiple ones. Because chemical bonds are broken, a decomposition reaction requires the addition of energy to begin. Usually the energy is supplied as heat, but sometimes simply a mechanical bump, electric shock, radiation, or change in humidity or acidity initiates the process. The  reactions may be classified on this basis as thermal decomposition reactions, electrolytic decomposition reactions, and catalytic reactions. A decomposition is the opposite or reverse process of a synthesis reaction. Decomposition Reaction Examples The electrolysis of water into oxygen and hydrogen gas is an example of a decomposition reaction:2 H2O → 2 H2 O2 Another example is the decomposition of potassium chloride into potassium and chlorine gas. 2 KCl(s) → 2 K(s) Cl2(g) Uses of Decomposition Reactions Decomposition reactions are also called analysis reactions because they are extremely valuable in analytical techniques. Examples include mass spectrometry, gravimetric analysis, and thermogravimetric analysis.

Human Resource Management in Practice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words - 1

Human Resource Management in Practice - Essay Example eed to know how human resources (HR) are managed in different regions of the world and how their counterparts in different parts of the globe perceive or react to similar concepts and pressures. It is also important to have an understanding about the main determinants of HRM policies and practices in different regional and national settings. Academics have responded positively to meet the challenges raised by the globalization of business by investigating a number of issues and problems related to international business . They have attempted to examine management from a cross-national viewpoint. This comparison of HRM policies and practices at a national level helps to test the convergence–divergence thesis. The typical questions pursued by comparative researchers are: (1) how is HRM structured in individual countries. (2) What strategies are discussed? (3) What is put into practice? (4) What are the similarities and differences? (5) What is the influence of national factors such as culture, government policy, and education systems? Scholars have also developed and proposed different models of HRM both between and within nations ((Mullins P.97–99, 2002)). Interestingly, most models of HRM have an Anglo–Saxon base. As such, from a global perspective, principles of HRM have been developed from a restricted sample of human experience. During the infancy stage of HRM literature, such an ethnocentric approach was understandable and unavoidable. However, with the growth of a â€Å"global business village,† firms operating in different countries need appropriate information and guidance to develop their HRM policies and practices. Under such dynamic business conditions, the relevance of lessons learned from the Anglo–Saxon experience is questionable. It is therefore important to examine the extent to which Anglo–Saxon models of HRM are applicable in other parts of the world. It has now become clear that the study of HRM needs a cross-national comparative