Mannings Arm Wrestling With My Father and Vowells Shooting Dad Essay

Mannings Arm Wrestling With My Father and Vowells Shooting Dad - Essay Example His father was into guns while Vowell was into music and art. Both Vowell and Manning had expressed distance and separation from their father which is characteristic of a generation gap. The son and the daughter however begun to understand their fathers when they matured. In Manning’s case, the son understood why the father was so critical of his performance, it was because he is pushing him to be the best he can be. In Vowell’s case, the daughter understood how alike she is to her father that â€Å"We’re both smart-alecky loners with goofy projects and weird equipment.† Differences in opinion, taste and preference are natual between a parent and a child. They may be genetically almost similar but they are still different person. They grew up in different generation and being such, their perspectives in life general can be different. These differences however does not have to escalate to a level of conflict whereby the child will feel distant and alienated to the father. This typically happens when the father over-impose himself and when there are unhealed grudges in the child. I have personally seen how unhealed grudges can ruin a father-child relationship in some of my friends. I am just lucky because my father is very supportive, understanding and loving that even if we have differences as a result of our generation gap, they were trivial and we even kid ourselves about it. My father condescends my type of music as loud while I tease him back that his type of music as old and dragging. He may be sarcastic at times when he reminds me of my priorities but I understand it to be his way of getting in to me so I will not get wayward with my life. I know he loves me because I felt it and he does not hesitate to show it to me. I also have a profound respect for my father for the kind of man he is. I am appreciative because I know hat some of my friends are not that lucky with their parents. I have this close friend who has an abusive fat her. His father does not reprimand him out of the intention of correcting his ways or make him better but just to rebuke him and make him feel bad. I know because I witnessed it when I visited him in their house. I do not know why and the only logical thing I can think about why does it is because of his alcohol and drug problem. As a result, my friend answers back to his father in a disrespectful manner and the exchange of words between are not pretty and unfit to be written in this paper. Suffice to say that they were harsh and some were even obscene. This explains why my friend rarely stays in their house and is always hanging out with his friends and angry with the world. My friend also gets in trouble frequently perhaps due to the pent up anger he has with his father. I am well aware that children should be respectful of their father. But fathers should also strive to become respectable and really be a father to their children. They should mend their ways so that they will have the moral ascendancy to advise their children to be live upright. In the case of my friend’s father, the father cannot do anything when my friend answers back to his father that before advising him to fix his life, to fix his life first. That is pretty harsh but it is quite true. Also, when giving reprimands, fathers should be kind when they admonish their child so that it will not create distance and generation gap. This usually happens

Financial Reporting and Analysis for Decision Making Essay

Financial Reporting and Analysis for Decision Making - Essay Example There appears no true definition under the ordinance or the HKAS.  Most cases require the knowledge of the accountant discretion. When companies comply with the Company’s Ordinance the HKAS depicts the situation as true and fair. The moment there appears a problem; the term comes straight from the legislative or the investment discretion (Oporowski, 2005). Hong Kong citizens tend to analyze the connection found among corporate operation reporting releases. Basing the argument to the results of a, certain company in, Hong Kong years 2011 shows that, Firms experiencing a high earning level, rarely releases the information to the yearly press disclosure. Companies that end up releasing their press disclosures display a heightened impression management. The implication here proves that managers who handle their practices engage in it at varied levels related to the firms’ communications. The ultimate information found in such communications proves that the corporations re lease information that lures the outsiders to view the firm’s performance in a way that they desire (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, 2011). Analysis of the Topic Issue Using Financial Theory The issues on manipulation The manipulation of data by the managers creates a wrong impression of the company, which later affects the issuance, and the content of the yearly results press releases. The manipulation of the financial reports leaves the public with numerous questions. The questions range from; whether the firm is trying to run away from legal implications, or it just wants to limit the information about the firm that can be viewed by the members of the public. Managers utilize the secretive nature presented by the members of the press release in facilitating manipulating figure to lure the customers and potential investors of the credibility of their corporate bodies. Another possible reason for the act comes from, or excluding the amount of individuals to re duce impression operations in the Hong Kong Accounting Standard (HKAS) 1 or entirely shun the release practice. Some researchers such as Godfrey et al argue that; earning management directly relates to graphical perception management coupled with explanatory impression management (Agarwal, 2002) Disclosures relating to noteworthy events, balances and transactions The impression can be traced at a glance by critical close look at the earning managements and impression management that are released earlier. Most managers tend to release the organization financial information by the use of the third quarter earnings of the organizational report. The study induces more literature as it constantly deals with the releases of Hong Kong Accounting Standard (HKAS) 1 (Revised). Previous analyses prove the application of manipulation practices in the press release data. The results this ends up affecting the stock markets shares prices (Financial Management Association, 1972) Auditors’ r emuneration The disclosure requirement where the issuers are expected by the line 2(h) in the Board’s main rules to give full information on the auditors and non auditors salary included in the corporate government report. The issuers’ failure to disclose the characteristics of non-audit assignments

The Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis The Cuban missile crisis began on 14 October, 1962 when an American U-2 spy plane discovered that Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union was attempting to install intermediate-range nuclear-outfitted ballistic missiles in Cuba.  [1]  These warheads would have the capacity to destroy a large portion of the United States and therefore posed an enormous threat. When confronted by this immense threat that could presage nuclear war, the American government was forced to take action in order to diffuse the situation. The complexities of this type of decision-making are intricate, yet explainable and fundamentally predictable thanks to modern methods of analysis. As John F. Kennedy phrased it, The essence of ultimate decision remains impenetrable to the observer-often, indeed, to the decider himselfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. There will always be the dark and tangled stretches in the decision-making process-mysterious even to those who may be most intimately involved.  [2]  I would like to unravel the dark and tangled stretches in this process by using game theory to retrodict, or make past predictions of, the different leaders choices throughout the thirteen day span of the Cuban missile crisis. Game Theory Basics When examined through the perspective of the Rational Actor Model, this situation introduces an obvious dilemma. Within this model, governments are treated as the primary actors. The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then selects the one that has the highest payoff. In this instance, the United States was involved in a nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union. In the time of this imminent threat of mutually assured destruction, the correct action needed to be taken as millions of lives were at stake. Game theory is a branch of analytical mathematics utilized in social science to attempt to mathematically calculate decision-making in strategic situations in which an individuals success in making choices is dependent upon the choices of others.  [3]  It applies to situations (games) where there are two or more parties (called players) each attempting to choose between two or more ways of acting (called strategies). The possible outcomes of a particular game depend on the choices made by all players, and they can be ranked in order of preference by each player. In regards to two-person, two-strategy games, as the Cuban missile crisis resembled, there are combinations of strategies for the players that are more or less stable. This occurs when neither player by departing from its strategy can do any better in the outcome. When both players use these strategies simultaneously, the outcome is known as a Nash equilibrium, named after esteemed game theorist John Nash. A Nash equilibrium does not necessarily produce optimum outcomes for one or both players though. Instead, it can be viewed more as an optimal middle ground in which both players are spared from suffering the worst possible outcome. A Nash equilibrium is essentially what was reached during the Cuban missile crisis. Chicken Game Model In game theory, Chicken is the typical game used to model conflicts in which the players are on a deadly collision course. The game borrowed its namesake from hot rod movies made famous in the 1950s.  [4]  In these movies, the players are two hot rodders and the game is one in which they drive their cars directly at one another, risking a head on collision. If one of them turns away at the last minute, he or she is said to have chickened out and is deemed the loser. However, if neither player decides to turn away, both are vulnerable to losing much more, since it is obvious that they will either be killed or seriously injured in the event of a wreck. In the last possibility of outcomes, if both players decide to turn away, neither gains nor loses anything. The payoffs of Chicken can be explained by this basic diagram: Basic Chicken John go straight turn away Mark go straight -10, -10 5, -5 turn away -5, 5 0, 0 *Matrix format  [5]   This matrix shows that this theoretical game has two Nash equilibria, (5,-5) and (-5,5), one where one hot rodder turns away and the other goes straight and vice versa. However, since there are two Nash equilibria and no predefined Schelling point, which is a solution that a player will tend to use in the absence of communication or substantial knowledge because it seems instinctive, or relevant to them,  [6]  there is no indication of which outcome is more likely. This poses a problem for the hot rodders as well as an equivocation for the game theorist since there is the ever present danger of both players falling into the mutual disaster of a collision. When aligned to the Cuban missile crisis, this mutual disaster is the mutually assured destruction of nuclear war. Application of the Chicken Game Model Thus unfolds a classic game of chicken with the United States behind one wheel, facing off with the Soviet Union behind the other. Before evaluating the end results of the game, however, it is important to first examine the formulation of strategies. Abiding by the theory of moves, it is of the highest importance to anticipate, whilst concurrently trying to condition, the outcomes and consequences of any major decision or choice of action. Therefore, when deciding on a strategy to employ, each alternative must be weighed and projected completely through its causal fallout. This was the most critical aspect of the game for the Kennedy administration. As Defense Secretary McNamara explained about the situation, Its not a military problem that were facing. Its a political problem. Its a problem of holding the Alliance together. Its a problem of properly conditioning Khrushchev for our future moves.  [7]  It cannot be said whether he was directly referencing game theory with this sta tement, but the implications are fitting in the application of such concepts. Many members of the administration and military leaders felt as though their hands were up in the air, or tied behind their backs, because no one was confident enough to make a final decision under these tense and potentially tragic conditions. The wrong decision could have led to the end of the United States of America. Even so, the urgency of the situation made it necessary for the right decision to be made immediately. Ultimately, every minute wasted was a minute longer the Soviets had to make the ballistic missiles operable in Cuba, therefore time and decision were of the essence. Group Decision-making and EXCOMM Group decision is a trustworthy way to make choices because of the benefits the approach produces, as long as social phenomena such as groupthink are avoided. The cooperative planning done by the Executive Committee including Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, John McNamara, Director of Central Intelligence John McCone and the other cabinet members ensured multilateral examination of the situation, fuller consideration of the entire spectrum of relevant points of interest, more ingenuity in the formulation of options and a greater overall sense of awareness and knowledge about the issue. This interplay of a multitude of expertise made an optimum decision likely. Furthermore, group interaction was the most logical approach when considering the negative effects preempted by a solo decision of President Kennedy. Miles Law states that where you stand depends on where you sit.  [8]  Specifically in this case, ones stance on an issue is significantly affected by their role in the government and where they fall into the operational chain of command. A cooperative decision minimized the role interference that could bias the plan of action. Possible Courses of Action After days of deliberation, Kennedy and his advisers came up with six possible options. These options were as follows: 1) Do nothing. Although an option, this course of inaction was not even considered as President Kennedy was sure the domestic fallout would be that of intolerance. 2) Impose diplomatic pressures and negotiate with Khrushchev at a summit. This option was also not popular because it implied that American concessions would be made and President Kennedy was unwilling to show this flexibility out of fear that it would be conveyed as vulnerability. 3) Make a secret appeal to Castro and split Cuba from its ties with the Soviet Union. 4) Send troops to Cuba for a ground invasion. 5) Deploy an air strike on the island in order to destroy the missiles and scare the Soviets of Cuba falling to US control. 6) Implement a blockade of Cuba to keep weapons away. However, whichever method picked had to be carried out without sparking a Soviet reprisal on Berlin.  [9]   After further deliberations, these options were narrowed down to two possible courses of action. Either a naval blockade to prevent the shipment of more missiles or a surgical air strike to destroy existing missiles would be implemented. In response, the Soviets could ultimately only choose between two strategies; either withdraw or maintain the missiles in Cuba. Specifically though, the blockade forced Khrushchev to choose among three immediate alternatives: 1) avoid a showdown by keeping Soviet vessels out of the area 2) submit to the blockade by permitting ships to be stopped and searched and 3) provoke the United States to a first use of force by defying the blockade. The game outcomes look more like this diagram: Applied Chicken Soviet Union withdraw (W) maintain (M) United States blockade (B) 3, 3 2, 4 air strike (A) 4, 2 1, 1 Together these strategies comprise the array of options the players have to choose from. When paired, they result in four possible outcomes, which the players are assumed to rank from one to four, with one being the worst, or least beneficial, and four being the best or most profitable outcome. The first number in the ordered pairs for each outcome is the payoff to the row player (United States), and the second number the payoff to the column player (Soviet Union). It is important to remember though that these rankings of the payoffs are only ordinal, meaning they only rank from best to worst, not incorporating the extent or degree to which a player prefers one outcome to another. Analysis of Applied Chicken Game Model Needless to say, this matrix of strategic choices and payoffs only provides an elementary depiction of the crisis as it unfolded over the thirteen day period. It must be acknowledged that both players considered more than merely the options listed, as well as modifications and augmentations of each. For example, the Soviets demanded the withdrawal of American missiles from Turkey as a quid pro quo  [10]  for withdrawal of their own missiles from Cuba.  [11]  The United States blatantly ignored this request. Even so, it is common belief that the superpowers were indeed on a collision course during the Cuban missile crisis and therefore the Chicken model is appropriate. Alternatively, neither side was forthcoming in undertaking any irreversible action, such as one of the drivers might do in Chicken by allowing the other driver to see him boldly breaking off the steering wheel of his car and coincidentally eliminating the option of maneuvering to avoid collision. It is here that the Chicken game leaves voids in application to the crisis. It can be said that the United States ultimately won by forcing the U.S.S.R. to withdraw their missiles. Per contra, Premier Khrushchev was granted a promise that the U.S. would not invade Cuba. This dual-reward represents a result that is basically a compromise- which does not coincide with game theorys prediction for a game of Chicken. The strategies the compromise consists of do not form any Nash equilibriums. To analyze this, assume that gameplay is at the compromise (3,3) position where the U.S. blockades Cuba and the Soviet Union withdraws its missiles. This outcome is not stable because both players have incentives to deviate to more aggressive strategies. If the U.S.S.R. was to defect by maintaining their missiles, gameplay would shift to (2,4) granting the Soviets a payoff of four. The same, but reverse, would happen if the U.S. decided to change their strategy to an air strike. This symmetry in the table of payoffs presents a recurring problem in interpreting results of a Chicken game- there is more than one equilibrium outcome.  [12]  Furthermore, if the players arrive at the mutually worst (1,1) outcome of nuclear war, both would have undoubtful incentive to move away from it, which makes the strategies associated with (1,1) just like those with (3,3); unstable. Shortfalls of the Chicken Game Model As shown, using Chicken to try to wholly model the Cuban missile crisis is flawed not only because of the instability of the outcomes but also because of the parameters. As it happened, the two superpowers did not select their strategies independently of each other, nor simultaneously as assumed in the Chicken game. The Soviet Union chose their actions in response to the already implemented U.S. quarantine. Additionally, the fact that the United States held the air strike option in reserve in case circumstances necessitated escalation of action shows that the first decision was not considered final, and the U.S. felt they still had strategic options open even after imposing the blockade. Consequently, the Cuban missile crisis can be more appropriately modeled as a game of sequential bargaining where neither player makes a terminal decision, but rather considers different alternatives, and reserves the absolutes in case the opponent should fail to act acceptably. Before the crisis, the Soviets felt they needed to advance their global strategic position, even though they feared that the U.S. might invade Cuba. Khrushchev decided that positioning the missiles was worth that risk. He and his staff rationalized that the Americans if confronted with this fait accompli, or an action that is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it, would be deterred from invading Cuba and would not any other severe reprisals.  [13]  Even if they instigated a crisis, they did not see the probability of war being high and therefore they risked antagonizing the United States. Recourse Game Model and Application Accordingly, there is convincing evidence to believe that American policy makers did not see the conflict Chicken-like based on how they considered and ranked possible outcomes. The over-simplicity of using this model was alluded to by historian Philip Zelikow in his analysis of the audio tapes of dialogue within the EXCOMM meetings.  [14]  In order to more thoroughly explain the crisis, I will further apply game theory to the situation by creating a new, modified version of the Chicken game that I will call Recourse. This representation maintains the same strategies given in Chicken, but redistributes the rankings and interpretations of outcomes. These new classifications align more thouroughly with history than those of Chicken: Applied Recourse Soviet Union withdraw (W) maintain (M) United States blockade (B) 3, 3 1, 4 air strike (A) 2, 2 4, 1 In the game of Recourse, the possible outcomes are as follows: B/W: The choice of blockade by the United States and withdrawal by the Soviet Union remains the compromise for both players = (3,3). B/M: In the face of a U.S. blockade, Soviet maintenance of their missiles leads to a Soviet victory (its best outcome) and U.S. capitulation (its worst outcome) = (1,4). A/M: An air strike that destroys the missiles that the Soviets were maintaining is an honorable U.S. action (its best outcome) and thwarts the Soviets (their worst outcome) = (4,1). A/W: An air strike that destroys the missiles that the Soviets were withdrawing is a dishonorable U.S. action (its next-worst outcome) and thwarts the Soviets (their next-worst outcome) = (2,2). Although air strike trumps the Soviet Union at both outcomes (4,1) and (2,2), I view the (2,2) outcome as less harmful to the Soviets. This is because international opinion at the time would condemn an American air strike as an obtrusively offensive move and furthermore a dishonorable action of the United States, especially if there was clear evidence that the U.S.S.R. was in the process of withdrawing their missiles already. If no such evidence existed, however, air strike, possibly supplemented with a ground invasion, would be acceptable action to counter the Soviet missiles. Accuracy of the Recourse Game Model The statements of U.S. policy makers support Recourse. In responding to a letter from Khrushchev, President Kennedy said, If you would agree to remove these weapons systems from Cuba . . . we, on our part, would agree . . . (a) to remove promptly the quarantine measures now in effect and (b) to give assurances against an invasion of Cuba,  [15]  which is consistent with Recourse since (3,3) is preferred to (2,2) by the United States, whereas (4,2) is not preferred to (3,3) in Chicken. If the Soviets maintained their missiles, the United States preferred an air strike to the blockade. As Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General under his brother during the crisis, said, If they did not remove those bases, we would remove them,  [16]  which is consistent with Recourse, since the United States prefers (4,1) to (1,4) but not (1,1) to (2,4) in Chicken. Similarly, it is well known that several of President Kennedys advisers were reluctant to initiate an attack against Cuba without first exhausting less belligerent courses of action that could bring about the removal of the missiles with less risk and greater sensitivity to American ideals and values.  [17]  This is in accordance with the United States tendency to always act ethically and the governments perpetual sensitivity to the worlds perception of America. Pointedly, Robert Kennedy claimed that an immediate attack would be looked upon as a Pearl Harbor in reverse, and it would blacken the name of the United States in the pages of history,  [18]  which is again consistent with Recourse since the United States ranks A/W next worst (2), a dishonorable U.S. action, rather than best (4), a U.S. victory, in Chicken. Actual Gameplay As it happened, at 7:00pm on 22 October, 1962, President Kennedy publicly announced that the United States had discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba and decreed a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba. Additionally, he demanded that Chairman Khrushchev halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace.  [19]  After the ships were deployed, all that was left to do was to await a response. Initially, on 24 October, as anticipated, Khrushchev responded defiantly, saying that he would instruct his ships to ignore the American blockade. However, the next morning, he reconciled and told Kennedy that he no longer wanted to exchange caustic remarks and was ready to resolve the crisis. Khrushchev offered his terms, Give us a pledge not to invade Cuba, and we will remove the missiles, proving that he was genuine when he professed that he was prepared to dismantle the missiles to make Cuba into a zone of peace.  [20]  The Soviet Union feared an American invasion of Cuba and saw the blockade as a heartening gesture that allowed concessions to be made without drastic loss. Essentially, the outcome of this game and the Cuban missile crisis in general can be assessed at 4:2 in favor of the United States. Although neither side literally gained any reward from the outcome, both avoided any significant loss. Since the United States made the initial offer and compelled the Soviet Union to make the next move, therefore inconveniencing Khrushchev into yielding to the conditions set forth by President Kennedy, America emerges as the winner of the game although the payoff was not maximized. Although Recourse creates a fitting model, this explanation of events is neither all-inclusive nor infallible. As with any theory, there are conditions that are assumed to, and must be, static that the reasoning is based upon. And in a dynamic world, these criteria are not always satisfied. There are a multitude of external factors that influence decision making, many of which will be discussed in the following sections as they pertain to the Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear war in general. Specified Game Theory: Deterrence Theory Game theory can be applied in a more general sense to other primary aspects of nuclear war, the most prominent of them being mutually assured destruction and deterrence. The application of game theory to these concepts has resulted in the derivation of a number of consequential theories which ultimately resolve in the cost-benefit analysis that game theory focuses on. According to the official U.S. Department of Defense definition, Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counter action.  [21]  This definition captures the main premise for the United States historic reliance on deterrence; however, it does not encompass the entirety of deterrence theory. In general, deterrence is a complex term that universally means persuading an opponent that the costs and consequences of a specific action will outweigh and trump any potential benefits. The concept of persuading an adversary references the significant psychological aspect of deterrence, which is often an interplay of uncertain concessions and threats that may or may not be bluffs or true promises. More specifically, using the word potential when describing the anticipated benefits shows the future-oriented aspect of any deterrent threat, meaning there is the promise of a certain reaction only in response to the undesired decision of another actor (player).  [22]   Capability vs. Credibility According to accredited deterrence theorist Derek Smith, Underlying any deterrent threat are the closely intertwined concepts of capability and credibility.  [23]  The concept of capability is reasonably straightforward and readily quantifiable variable, based on each players arsenal and military forces that are available for use in any engagement; whereas, credibility is a much more complex and qualitative variable, which is defined mostly from the anticipated probability that all available forces will actually be utilized, making it trivial. To clarify, for example, a state may have a promising amassment of armed forces, but if the state is governed by domestic doctrine that forbids their use except for in strict cases of homeland defense, then any strategy or threat of external use of force as deterrence will lack credibility. The Psychology of Commitment Techniques In order to strengthen the perception of an actors resolve, a popular strategy is to use commitment techniques,  [24]  or techniques that increase the costs and losses involved in refusing or failing to act. An everyday example of this type of strategy is if someone tells all of their friends that they are quitting smoking for good. From thence on, their friends will act as a constant source of pressure for them to uphold the obligation (commitment) because they voiced it publicly, and will now be held accountable to it. For a better example, Smith illustrates the military image of burning bridges while in combat to make a retreat impossible, which is an unambiguous method for cementing ones resolve.  [25]   Similarly, in the words of Thomas Schelling, What we have to do is get ourselves into a position where we cannot fail to react as we said we would-where we just cannot help it-or where we would be obliged by some overwhelming cost of not reacting in the manner we had declared.  [26]  In order to illustrate this concept, Shelling makes reference to how, during the Cold War, the United States posted troops in Western Europe to act as a tripwire against Soviet aggression. This was an act that served to fortify resolve, and essentially the United States made the defense of Europe, and their overarching containment strategy a more absolute prospect by effectively eliminating the choice of retreat and abandonment.  [27]   The Paradox of Control and MAD The idea that a player denying himself options can be a productive or beneficial move appears counterintuitive at first. Schelling describes this phenomenon as a paradox that the power to constrain an adversary may depend on the power to bind oneself.  [28]  Reexamining a fundamental game of Chicken is a fitting way of clarifying what is meant by that. If the two drivers are about to start speeding towards each other, it would make an extreme statement if one of the drivers decided to break off his steering wheel and show the other driver. After this, the other driver would have no choice but to give up and turn his car or suffer the tragic collision. Making a bold statement like this can be a very effective way of determining resolve in situations where capability is lacking, however, the important thing to note is that it is always possible that both drivers could choose to make the same decision, which would create an even worse outcome than if the power position had been conceded at the end. The critical factor, then, is actually who is able to make the first move, thereby leaving the remaining with only one last clear chance to avoid catastrophe.  [29]  This catastrophe, in parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis, is mutually assured destruction. Furthermore, in addition to committing oneself to a specific course of action, there is also the trivial strategy of issuing a threat that leaves something to chance, so that the end decision of whether or not to act is not completely controlled by the player that issued the threat.  [30]  This particular bargaining technique plays on the factor of risk-acceptance, assuming that the opposing side will choose to give in first. Consider the clichà © scenario of one person rocking a boat in order to extract concessions from the scared occupants. Schelling uses the term brinksmanship to describe this strategy, the choice of deliberately letting the situation get somewhat out of hand, just because its being out of hand may be intolerable to the other party and force his accommodation.  [31]  Going back to the Chicken scenario, this would be verisimilar to one of the drivers publicly consuming a large amount of alcohol or other psychoactive substance before stepping into the car, thus creating uncertainty in the other players mind that he would be able to avoid a collision even if he actually wanted to do so. This would likely influence the sober driver to concede unless he really wanted to collide, and thus the daredevil player who intoxicated himself indirectly forced the sober player to capitulate; effecting the outcome he desired by acting outside the bounds of rationality. Deterrence: Rationality of Irrationality In much of the widely accepted literature published on deterrence, this phenomenon is called the rationality of irrationality, since one player can draw coercive power from the prospect of being potentially undeterrable.  [32]  As stated, whilst this strategy is dominantly compelling, it still welcomes tragedy, i.e. mutually assured destruction, by undertaking irrationality even though the opponent could possibly do the same or is expecting rational behavior from the other actor involved in the crisis. Regardless, despite the strategies and techniques that play out systematically and predictably in game theory and in the aforementioned hypothetical examples, it is always important to remember that the concept of deterrence, and the use of deterrence as a strategy, are built on a foundati

Beauty And The Beast :: essays research papers

Have you ever heard something go thump in the night? Do you believe in monsters? In the movies "Beauty and the Beast" and "E.T.", the monster like characters the captured the hearts of viewers of all ages. They both involve two characters that are thrusted into lifestyles that they are not used to. The beast and E.T were both unique creatures, had close relationships with humans, and were great works of fiction. In both stories, "Beauty and the Beast" and "E.T.", the main characters are unique creatures are forced into a human society, which does not always accept them for who they are. Society, in general, is against both creatures; school children tease and mock Elliot about his new extra-terrestrial friend, and the townsfolk in "Beauty and the Beast" attempt to kill the Beast for not being human. Nobody relates to either character, seeing as they are both â€Å"freaks† in their respective time periods and locations. Nobody accepts them as being different; both characters are thrown out of society like a couple of lepers for not being like everybody else. Also, they are both in unique situations, the Beast because he used to be a human, and was turned into an evil beast by a magic spell, and E.T. was from another planet, and had no intention of ever coming to earth or meeting Elliot. Both characters are very unique in the society in which they were thrust, and neither one has anyone like him to go to or latch onto for understanding and support. Both the Beast and E.T. found one person on earth who accepts them for who they are. Although the Beast captures Belle, she learns to love him and understand his situation; she becomes his one true friend in a society which hates him for who what they think he is. Elliot discovered E.T. in his closet, and due to the fact he had no other real friends, naturally accepted the alien. From their initial meeting, E.T. and Elliot became the closest of friends in the film; in fact Elliot was E.T.’s only human friend. Other than those two humans, nobody else attempts to understand where either creature comes from, and as a result, no one befriends them. In addition, both E.T. and the Beast come from great works of fiction, having no fact behind their stories but both being created for no purpose other than pure entertainment.

Hepatitis Dates

Hepatitis Introduction to Health and Disease April 17, 2010 Hepatitis Introduction Hepatitis is a symptomatic infection that affects the liver. The most common types of Hepatitis virus are A, B, C, D and E. The history of hepatitis dates back to ancient times and the success of modern medicine have improved the prevention and treatment of most types of Hepatitis. The high risk groups include injectible drug users, hemodialysis patients, and those who have sexual contact with infected people. Hepatitis B and C are the leading cause of chronic liver disease and liver cancer in the United States. History History of Hepatitis is believed to go back as far as the ancient times. With today’s modern medicine scientists have discovered a major breakthrough in 1963 that identified a serum hepatitis known as Hepatitis B Virus (HBV). Ten years later, they found the cause of hepatitis infection and called it Hepatitis A Virus (HAV). In 1989, Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) was discovered. Hepatitis Delta Virus (HDV) was known in the 1970’s, but was better understood by scientists in the 1980-1990’s. Later the Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) was discovered in 1990. Etiology Hepatitis A (HAV) the least serious form and may develop as an isolated case of an epidemic. It is estimated that one out of every 3 people has been affected by HAV. Transmission of HAV is associated with close personal contact or contaminated food or water (Wilson, p. 13). Hepatitis B (HBV) is transmitted primarily by contact with infected blood, semen, and other bodily fluids. Injectable drug users, people with multiple sexual partners and homosexuals are at higher risk for contracting the B virus. Hepatitis B can severely damage a person’s liver, resulting in cancer (Nordqvist, 2009). Hepatitis C (HCV) is the most serious blood borne infection in the United States. The disease is often passed between drug users who share needles. People who are on dialysis and sexual contact are also at risk. The hepatitis virus is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplants (Wilson, 2005). Hepatitis D (HDV) is a defective virus that only if the people who are infected with Hepatitis B. The virus is transmitted through contact with infected blood, unprotected sex, and piercing of the skin with infected needles. The effects of HDV are more serious and progresses to chronic liver disease more frequently than virus A, B, or C. Hepatitis E (HEV) is the leading cause of epidemics around the world, but cases in the United States are rare. Primarily HEV is spread by fecal contaminated drinking water and there is no evidence that HEV progresses to chronic liver disease (Wilson, 2005). There have been no cases of HEV reported in the United States. Patients with Hepatitis A and B typically experience sudden unset of fever, malaise and fatigue, nausea and abdominal pain. Anorexia and jaundice may also be present. Hepatitis C is less forgiving as symptoms may not appear until the patient’s condition has progressed to cirrhosis or cancer (Neighbors & Tannehill-Jones, 2006). Populations affected by Hepatitis In the United States approximately 1. 2 million are living with Hepatitis B and 3. 2 are living with Hepatitis C. Estimated 25,000 people become infected with Hepatitis A. Many people do not know the virus infection exist in the body (CDC, 2009). The Center for Disease Control (2009) estimates 180 million people over the world is infected with HCV, of which four million are identified as cases in the United States. Each year 26,000 cases of HCV are diagnosed in the United States alone, and 10,000 to 12,000 deaths are contributed to HVC (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2009, p. 1). The hepatitis virus is the leading cause of liver cancer and the reason for liver transplants. In the United States approximately 1. 2 million are living with Hepatitis B and 3. 2 are living with Hepatitis C. Estimated 25,000 people become infected with Hepatitis A. Many people do not know the virus infection exist in the body (CDC, 2009). Treatment In July of 1982 the Hepatitis B vaccine was approved for use and thirteen years later (1995) the HAV vaccine was approved for use. These significant scientific breakthroughs have led a steady decline in the number of HAV and HBV cases in the United States. There is not a vaccine available for HCV but scientists are working hard to develop one. In addition to the vaccines some treatment options are available. HAV usually resolves itself and no specific treatment is needed. Treatment for HBV is Interferon which slows the progress of the disease in about 40% of patients (Neighbors & Tannehill-Jones, 2006). In addition to treating HBV Interferon is very effective for treating HCV. This antiviral slows the disease process about 30% of the time (Neighbors & Tannehill-Jones, 2006). There is not an effective treatment for HDV or HEV. Treatment for end stage cirrhosis or cancer caused by hepatitis may result in a liver transplant. Conclusion Hepatitis is a disease that causes an inflammation of the liver. There are several viruses that cause cirrhosis or cancer of the liver. Hepatitis A is a mild disease that typically resolves itself. The hepatitis B virus is more severe than A and less severe than C. The availability of vaccines for Hepatitis A and B has decreased the number of cases while Hepatitis C continues to infect high risk populations. Scientists continue to strive for a cure for Hepatitis C but in the meantime a people need to be aware of the disease and take steps the reduce the possibility of exposure. References Centers for Disease Control. (2009). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Retrieved from http://www. cdc. gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5803. pdf Neighbors, M. & Tannehill-Jones, R. (2006). Viral diseases acquired through alimentary and other routes. In Human diseases (pp. 201-203). Retrieved from https://ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx Nordqvist, C. (2009,  April). What is Hepatitis? Symptoms, Causes, and Treatment. Medical News Today, (), Retrieved April 13, 2010 from http://www. medicalnewstoday. com/articles/145869. php Wilson, T. (2005). The ABCs of hepatitis. Th e Nurse Practitioner, 30(6), 12-18. Retrieved from Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.

Parent-Child Relationship in “King Lear” Essay

At the heart of King Lear lies the relationship between father and child. Central to this filial theme is the conflict between man’s law and nature’s law. Natural law is synonymous with the moral authority usually associated with divine justice. Those who adhere to the tenets of natural law are those characters in the text who act instinctively for the common good–Kent, Albany, Edgar, and Cordelia. Eventually, Gloucester and Lear learn the importance of natural law when they recognize that they have violated these basic tenets, with both finally turning to nature to find answers for why their children have betrayed them. Their counterparts, Edmund, Goneril, Regan, and Cornwall, represent the evil that functions in violation of natural law. All four conspirators are without conscience and lack recognition of higher moral authority, since they never consider divine justice as they plot their evil. Their law is man-made, and it focuses on the individual, not the good of the community. Tragedy unfolds as two carefully interwoven and parallel stories explore the abandonment of natural order and the unnatural betrayal of parent and child. In the primary plot, Lear betrays his youngest daughter and is betrayed by his two oldest daughters. In almost identical fashion, the subplot reveals another father, Gloucester, who betrays his older legitimate son and who is betrayed by his younger illegitimate son. In both cases, the natural filial relationship between father and children is destroyed through a lack of awareness, a renunciation of basic fairness and natural order, and hasty judgment based on emotions. By the play’s end, the abandonment of natural order leaves the stage littered with the dead bodies of fathers and their children. In the opening act, Lear creates a love test to justify giving Cordelia a larger share of his kingdom. Although his kingdom should be divided equally, Lear clearly loves Cordelia more and wants to give her the largest, choice section of his wealth. In return, Lear expects excessive flattery and gushing confessions of love. But instead, Cordelia’s reply is tempered, honest, and reasonable–custom dictates that she share her love between her husband and her father. Just as soon as Cordelia fails to meet her father’s expectations, Lear disinherits her. At Cordelia’s loss, Goneril and Regan are quick to take advantage. They may have genuinely loved their father at one time, but they now seem tired of having been passed over in favor of their younger sister. After Lear states his obvious preference for Cordelia, the older sisters feel free to seek their revenge, turning the family’s natural order on its ear. At the same time, Lear fails to see the strength and justice in natural law, and disinherits his youngest child, thus setting in motion the disaster that follows. Lear puts in place a competition between sisters that will carry them to their graves. In a similar father-child relationship, the opening scene of King Lear positions Gloucester as a thoughtless parent. The audience’s introduction to this second father has him speaking of Edmund’s birth in a derogatory manner. Although Gloucester says that he loves both Edmund and Edgar equally, society does not regard the two as equal–and neither does Gloucester, whose love is limited to words and not actions of equality. According to nature’s law, Edmund is as much Gloucester’s son as Edgar is; but according to man’s law of primogeniture, Edmund is not recognized as Gloucester’s heir. In one of the initial pieces of information offered about Edmund, Gloucester tells Kent that Edmund has been away seeking his fortune, but he has now returned. Under English law, Edmund has no fortune at home, nor any entitlement. Edmund’s return in search of family fortune provides the first hint that he will seize what English laws will not give him. Clearly, Edmund’s actions are a result of his father’s preference–both legal and filial–for Edgar, his older and legitimate son. This favoritism leads to Edmund’s plan to destroy his father in an attempt to gain legitimacy and Gloucester’s estate. Again, the natural order of family is ignored. Gloucester rejects natural law and a parent’s love for his child when he is easily convinced that Edgar–the son he claims to love so much–has betrayed him. Gloucester also puts his faith in Edmund’s command of persuasive  language, when he rejects the love his eldest son has always shown him. With this move, the earl demonstrates that he can be swayed by eloquence, a man-made construct for easy persuasion, which causes him to reject natural law and the bond between father and child. Edmund both ignores and embraces natural law. By betraying his father to Cornwall and Regan, Edmund’s self-serving course of action abandons nature’s order and instead foreshadows the neo-Darwinist argument for survival of the strongest individual. His ability to survive and win is not based on competitive strategies or healthy family relationships; instead, Edmund will take what he desires by deceiving those who trust and love him. Edmund’s greed favors natural law over man’s law because natural law doesn’t care that Edmund is illegitimate. He claims nature as his ally because he is a â€Å"natural† offspring, and because man’s law neglects to recognize his rights of inheritance. But, nature only serves Edmund as a convenient excuse for his actions. His actions against his brother and father are more a facet of greed than any reliance on natural law. One might argue that Gloucester’s cavalier attitude toward Edmund’s conception mitigates Edmund’s actions. When combining this possibility with Edmund’s final scene, in which he tries to save Cordelia and Lear, Edmund clearly shows himself to be of different fabric than Goneril, Regan, and Cornwall. In many ways, Gloucester is responsible for what Edmund becomes. Edmund is as much Gloucester’s son as is Edgar. In embracing the man-made laws that reject Edmund’s legal rights, Gloucester is denying natural laws that would make Edmund and Edgar equal. Gloucester also acts against nature in rejecting Edgar without sufficient proof of his wrongdoing; thus Gloucester shares responsibility for the actions that follow, just as Lear’s love test results in his rejection of Cordelia. Both men are easily fooled and consequently, they both reject natural law and their children. Both act without deliberation, with hasty responses that ultimately betray their descendants. At the play’s conclusion, Goneril and Regan’s abandonment of natural order and their subscription to evil has finally destroyed them. The audience learns early in the final scene that Goneril has poisoned Regan and killed herself. Their deaths are a result of unnatural competition, both for power and for love. But Lear is the one who set in motion the need to establish strength through competition, when he pitted sister against sister in the love test. For the audience, the generational conflict between parent and child is an expected part of life. We grow impatient with our parents and they with us. We attempt to control our children, and they rebel. When Goneril complains that Lear and his men are disruptive and out of control, we can empathize–recognizing that our own parent’s visits can extend too long or that our children’s friends can be quite noisy. Shakespeare’s examination of natural order is central to our own lives, and that is one of the enduring qualities of King Lear.