Determination Of The Relative Composition Of a Mixture Solution Essay Example for Free

Determination Of The Relative Composition Of a Mixture Solution Essay To determine the relative composition of a mixture solution containing sodium ethane-1, 2-dioate and ethane-1, 2-dioic acid. INTRODUCTION Potassium permanganate KMn is a strong oxidizing agent which reacts with reducing agent ethanedioate ion to give and C + 2 Mn+ 16 2+8+10 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) reacts with acid to give water . the reaction is shown with the following equation + To investigate the relative composition of the mixture solution, it has to be titrated with NaOH first with phenolphthalein as indicator and then with acidify KMn as Mn react with both compound. KMnhas to be acidified first, otherwise brown ppt of Mn is formed instead of 2 H2O + MnO4- + 3 e- à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Mn+ 4 In addition to that, the reaction solution has to be warmed to about 70 as the reaction rate is very slow. MATERIALS AND APPARATUS beaker measuring cylinder. Safety spectacles beaker conical flask pipette ,25 burette ,50, and stand wash bottle white file electrical heater sulphuric acid Potassium permanganate KMn solution Mixture solution PROCEDURE 1. 25.00of the mixture solution was transferred into a 250conical flask using a pipette rinsed by distilled water and the mixture solution 2. The burette rinsed by distilled water and NaOH is filled with NaOH 3. Titrate the mixture solution with 0.1M NaOH solotuion using phenolphthalein as indicactor 4. Until the solution turns pink, result is recorded in table 1 5. About 25.00of 1M sulphuric acid (using measuring cylinder) is added to the conical flask . 6. The mixture is then heated by electrical heater to at least 70. 7. The heated mixture is then titrated with 0.02M Potassium permanganate KMn until a permanent pink colour is observed 8. Record the result in Table2 RESULT Table 1 Titration result of mixture solution against NaOH Trial 1 2 3 Final burette reading 15.4 27.3 39.0 12.8 Initial burette Reading 3.1 15.4 27.3 1.0 Volume of NaOH Added 12.3 11.9 11.7 11.8 Mean Volume of NaOH added ( 11.7+11.8+11.9) /3 =11.8 Table 2 Titration result of mixture solution against KMn Trial 1 2 3 Final burette reading 35.0 26.4 45.5 40.6 Initial burette Reading 16.3 7.1 26.4 21.4 Volume of NaOH Added 18.7 19.3 19.1 19.2 Mean Volume of NaOH added ( 19.3+19.1+19.2) /3 =19.2 CALCUALTION Equation involved in the reaction between NaOH and mixture solution: + +Na(aq) Mole ratio of NaOH:=2:1 = =11.8/10000.1/2 =5.9xmol Molarity of = 5.9X/(25/1000) =2.36 x M + 2 Mn+ 16 2+8+10 Mole ratio of : Mn=5:2 = =519.2/10000.02/2 =9.610^-4 mol Mole of sodium ethane-1,2-dioate = 9.6x-5.91 l = 3.7 x mol Molarity of sodium ethane-1,2-dioate in mixture = 3.7 x/(25/1000) =1.48xM DISCUSSIONS CHOICE OF INDICATORS Phenolphthalein is used as indicator in the reaction between Sodium hydroxide and ethane-1, 2-dioic acid because the reaction involves a weak acid titrated against a strong alkali. REASON FOR HEATING THE MIXTURE SOLUTION The rate reaction between and Mn is very slow as there is repulsion between anion. REASON FOR HEATING MIXTURE SOLUTION IN THE CONICAL FLASK INSTEAD OF MN IN THE BURETTE Aqueous solution of Potassium permanganate KMn is unstable and can easily be decomposed. The decomposition is accelerated by heat. If it is put in the conical flask and heated, it will easily oxidize water to oxygen and the amount of KMn is therefore decreased. 4Mn 4Mn +3 In addition, if hot Potassium permanganate solution is added to the burette, it may cause expansion of burette, causing inaccurate measurement. END POINT The end-point is not very permanent because if the Mn ion is in large excess, the following reaction occur: 2 Mn+3+ 2 +4 DECOPOSITION OF POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE Potassium permanganate is easily decomposed and the decomposition is speed up by light, heat, acids, base, reducing agent in air such as hydrogen sulphide gas, , , and even by the end-product Therefore, it should be stored in brown bottle and should be standardized before use. ABSORPTION OF WATER BY SODIUM HYDROXIDE sodium hydroxide absorb water from air. The volume of solution increase, and hence cause a decrease in concentration, causing inaccurate calculation CONCLUSION The concentration of sodium ethane-1,2-dioate is 1.48xM while ethane-1, 2-dioic acids is 2.36 x M

Advantages and disadvantages of increasing interdependence and interconnectedness

Advantages and disadvantages of increasing interdependence and interconnectedness Since the 1970s the globalisation of finance has made the economic fortunes of states increasingly interdependent. Until relatively recently international finance was still considered principally to be an adjunct to trade (McGrew, 2007), a necessary mechanism that enabled the exchange of goods and services at the international level. Its phenomenal growth over the past few decades has shattered this perception. Today the global economy is characterised by the sheer volume and velocity of international financial transactions. Average daily turnover on traditional foreign exchange markets increased from $15bn in 1973 (Gilpin, 2001) to $3.2tr in April 2007 (BIS, Sep 2007). While the successes of financial liberalisation include lifting millions out of poverty in China, East Asia, and elsewhere, and improving the developing worlds access to markets, its failures have also been stark. Various crises of the 1990s showed that problems in one country or even a particular industry can fast become global. The recent financial crisis of 2007 has again generated discussion at the normative and theoretical level about the contemporary global financial architecture, its widely perceived benefits, and its increasingly evident costs. The increasing significance of the global financial system over the past two decades has been mirrored by a surge of interest from the academic field of international political economy. Its effects are now so far-reaching that commentators have drawn connections between international financial integration and such diverse developments as social turbulence in East Asia, monetary union in Europe, and failed development strategies in Latin America (Pauly, 2005). Most of this literature, however, tends to focus on specific aspects of financial globalisation, such as its implications for national economic policy or the power of transnational corporations (TNCs). This essay intends to broaden the debate, to demonstrate the apparent paradox of international financial integration while it has made states, economies, firms and individuals more intimately interconnected than ever before, it is an inherently divergent process. It will argue that the international financial system is increasingly producing a global dichotomy. The benefits of financial integration, in the main, accrue to capital-rich states and the owners of capital, those free to move their resources around the world to seek the highest returns. Developing states, and those without control of capital resources, while receiving less of the advantages of integration, are more adversely affected by its disadvantages, such as contagion and capital flight. The first section will discuss the evolution of the contemporary global financial system, and how it came to be in its current form. I will argue that advanced industrial states, following a neo-liberal paradigm of liberalisation, facilitated the deregulation and increased interdependence of the financial system through political actions. However, it has been technological and market innovation that has accelerated and expanded this interconnectedness to an unprecedented level. These origins are key to understanding why capital-rich entities are better equipped to reap the benefits of financial integration. The next two sections will put forward the principle advantages and disadvantages of this integration. The following section will provide an analysis of these, contending that the capital-poor gain less of the former, and are more exposed to the latter. The concluding section will summarise this argument and touch on its implications for the future of the global economy while glo balisation promises universal benefits, these cannot be realised under the current system, which precipitates a global dichotomy between the capital-rich and the capital-poor. Origins of the contemporary global financial system As Benjamin Cohen (1996) suggests, little consensus exists concerning the causes of financial globalisation, and many scholars have attempted to apply their own structure to the study. The critical contribution to the debate comes from Eric Helleiner (1994), who persuasively argues that the globalisation of finance was advanced by the political decisions of major states. Helleiner also, however, neglects the exponential effect that technological and market innovations have had on the financial system, a factor considered key by others such as Cerny (1993) and Strange (1998). Political actions by leading states have enabled the globalisation of finance since the 1970s. By far the most significant was the abolition of capital controls, firstly by the USA and the UK, and then other major economies. As Goodman and Pauly (2000) suggest, liberalisation became and continues to be a competitive practice, and other countries had to react to prevent mobile domestic capital and financial business from migrating abroad. By the 1990s an almost fully liberal pattern of financial relations had emerged and today market actors experience freedom in cross-border activity unparalleled since the 1920s (Helleiner, 2007). International capital mobility is the most significant, and defining, characteristic of the global financial system. It has created many of the advantages and disadvantages associated with integration, and has also been instrumental in creating and sustaining the global dichotomy. The embracing of a new neo-liberal economic ideology among the major economic powers in the 1980s was key for the international financial system, which was given a large boost by plans to remove the state from the economy and allow the market mechanism to work (Soros, 1998). This theory was less sympathetic to the Bretton Woods ideal that national policy autonomy had to be protected, and was content to let the markets impose an external discipline on governments pursuing not sound policies (Helleiner, 2007). Financial liberalisation has been successfully institutionalised as a component of several multilateral agreements (Eichengreen, 2003). As early as 1976 the USA successfully lobbied for a change to the International Monetary Funds Articles of Agreement so that the new official goal of the Fund was to preside over a regime that facilitated the free exchange of capital between countries (Watson, 2007). This regime, however, has been deepened and broadened to an unprecedented extent by technological and market innovations. The volatility of prices and exchange rates in the 1970s led to phenomenal growth in the derivatives market, particularly after the emergence of an over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market in the 1990s. In 1990 OTC contracts totalled $3.45bn, which had risen to $18tr in 1995 and $24tr by 1996 (Strange, 1998). These new financial instruments involved an initial outlay only a fraction of the notional value of the contract, giving banks and other TNCs the means at relatively low cost to hedge themselves against losses from unpredicted changes in exchange rates, interest rates, and commodities. Huge advances in computing and telecommunications over the last thirty years have been central to the huge volume and velocity of international financial flows (Held et al., 1999). Before the 1990s only data could be exchanged instantly between corporate offices and banks. The rise of the Internet meant opinions and rumours could also be traded, contributing to dangerous fluctuations but increasing interdependency. International banks and firms transfer huge amounts of money quickly and safely due to automatic clearing systems. In 1995 the USAs Clearing House Interbank Payment System (CHIPS) became the largest international clearing system processing some 200,000 transactions a day (Strange, 1998). Today CHIPS, and its state-run competitor Fedwire, clear an average daily value of $1.5tr (CHIPS, 2010) and $2.5tr (Fedwire, 2009) respectively. The root causes of the globalisation of finance are crucial to the understanding of its advantages and disadvantages, as it is evident that major states initiated the process because of the benefits it promised to them and to the rest of the world. It is also clear that innovation in both technology and markets has accelerated the process, making the benefits more pronounced for those involved, while also increasing the potential costs. The advantages of integration The advantages of increased interdependence and the expansion of the global financial system are often championed by international institutions, politicians and international business leaders. At a fundamental level, the benefits cited are backed up by economic theory, that which is at the heart of the neo-liberal paradigm of international finance advocated by many of the worlds economies. It holds that markets allocate resources in socially desirable ways. Flows from capital-abundant to capital-scarce countries, on the assumption that the marginal product of capital is higher in the latter than the former, increase welfare on both sides (Eichengreen Mussa, 1998). International financial transactions allow economies experiencing business-cycle disturbances to smooth the time profile of consumption and investment. Free capital movements thus facilitate a more efficient global allocation of savings and resources to their most productive uses. An advantage of the expansion of the financial system advocated by the global financial institutions is the convergence of national policies. The neo-liberal programme holds as desirable the homogenisation of national policy across state boundaries. The freedom of capital is said to have enabled the European Unions single currency, tax harmonisation across national borders and the international convergence of macroeconomic policy (Frieden, 1991). This, the argument goes, is good for eradicating instability in the global financial system. The incentive for resources to evade controls and regulations is lessened if national regulations are homogenised. The problem with this argument, however, is that capital mobility breeds a competitive environment between emerging economies for investment, which will be discussed below. Some international firms now command more resources than many states (OBrien, 2005). For these firms, the development of the contemporary global financial system has brought two huge distinct advantages: higher returns on their investments, and the ability to diversify risk internationally. Higher returns have been produced by two factors the inherent volatility of the system, and the greater opportunity to exploit it. Firstly, the inherent volatility and uncertainty of the financial system leads to higher returns for investors. Firms are able to trade on the volatile prices of currencies and commodities. With vast capital resources huge sums can be made very quickly with even small fluctuations on international capital markets. The best example of how capitalists gain from this volatility is the benefit that many manage to take from the systems crises. Currency trader George Soros is alleged to have made  £1bn from the devaluation of the British Sterling in 1992. Private companies are also said to have benefitted from the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Stiglitz (2002) argues that the intervention of the IMF, a Western-backed institution, ensured that Western firms were paid back their loans, while numerous national firms in Asia were left to collapse. Most of the $ 55bn the Mexican government owed following its 1994 crisis was to private creditors (OBrien Williams, 2007). The nature of the financial system means that investors can pull money out of a currency virtually instantaneously, and move back in after a collapse making a handsome profit. This leads to self-fulfilling prophecies of currency speculation, discussed below, but the investors are protected from most of the risk involved, whereas the economies concerned can suffer decline for years. Secondly, with the opening of countries capital markets, the opportunity for investment has increased substantially. Banks, hedge funds, and international manufacturing firms have all benefitted from having a much larger global market to do business in. With the ease of transferring financial resources to emerging markets and new host states, TNCs have access to a mass global pool of cheap labour. This capital mobility means governments all over the world have to provide more attractive conditions for companies, from low capital gains tax to relaxed financial and labour regulation (Frieden, 1991). Emerging economies, deemed to be high risk, must offer attractive interest rates to attract investment. There is constant competition between economies for foreign direct investment with which to finance development, meaning better and better business environments for investors. The key advantage for the capital-rich entities is that while gaining from the volatility and uncertainty of the system, they can also protect themselves against it. Modern financial markets operate to allow risks to be packaged and redistributed so that actors can hedge against specific risks like exchange rate fluctuations (Held et al., 1999). High-risk investments yield high returns, but if these investments do not yield, investors are protected by the profits from investments elsewhere. Market innovations such as options, futures and swaps even help protect investors from future fluctuations. There are also huge advantages associated with the development of the global financial system for less-developed countries (LDCs). The economies of East Asia, China, India and others have shown what can be achieved utilising international investment. Millions have been lifted out of poverty, economies transformed to industrial powers, and their national firms compete at the global level. These developments have been enabled by the crucial advantage of interdependence to smaller economies, access to financial markets. The opening of financial markets, as Jeffrey Frieden (1991) suggests, has strengthened labour-intensive industries, in which developing economies have a distinct advantage, through increased investment. The ease of transferring capital across national borders has increased the use of outsourcing and facilitated an explosion of FDI in the 1990s to areas like East Asia and Latin America, providing a huge boost to industries in the recipient countries. Access to financial markets also means that the governments of smaller economies can borrow to fund their development. Borrowing allows such economies to hold their currencies at preferred rates to suppress inflation and keep up debt repayments without inflicting a huge recession at home (Green, 2003). The remarkable development of the East Asian economies would not have been possible without huge inflows of capital, both in FDI and government borrowing to fund economic development strategies. The disadvantages of integration While the advantages of greater financial integration mentioned above have helped many less-developed countries expand their industries and grow their economies, their progress has been beset by financial crises, most notably in the 1990s. These crises were notable because they happened in very similar circumstances in completely different parts of the world, and spread across national boundaries and even to different regions. Contagion of financial crises is the most serious disadvantage of increased interdependence. This effect was most obviously witnessed in the late 1990s, where integration turned a currency crisis in Thailand into the Asian crisis, and turned the Asian crisis into a global recession. Thailands devaluation made Thai exports very cheap, meaning other economies selling very similar exports to the same markets were forced to devalue in order to protect demand. The crash in Asia precipitated crashes in Russia, Brazil and Argentina. As Jones (2000) explains, the contagious effects of Asia were threefold: psychological upon investors, the collapse of regional markets for Southeast Asian exports, and upon other world markets as demand collapsed. This demonstrates a key point, that due to the nature of their economies, developing countries bear much more of the cost of crises because of capital flight. As crisis spreads, investors begin to question the wisdom of their investments in, and the reliability of, other emerging market economies. Due to the Asian crisis capital was withdrawn en masse as traders sold the currencies of Russia, Brazil and Argentina for safer currencies in Western Europe, and the dollar. Capital flight also devastated the Mexican economy in 1994-5. From 1990 to 1993 $91bn flowed into Mexico, a fifth of all capital going to developing states (OBrien Williams, 2007). Higher interest rates in the USA, combined with a rebellion in Chiapas and the assassination of a presidential candidate, caused investors to doubt that Mexico could keep its peso fixed to the dollar. In December 1994 investors sold the peso in such large quantities that the dollar link was abandoned. Living standards were cut in half (OBrie n Williams, 2007), the poor suffered, and the middle class faced skyrocketing interest rates and diminished savings due to the devaluation. Some claim that these disadvantages, and their specific effect on LDCs, are not given proper consideration by advanced states and their neo-liberal programme of reform. As Barry Eichengreen (2003) attests, LDCs have specific financial problems. Their monetary and fiscal institutions lack credibility. Their regulators lack administrative capacity. Their financial markets are shallow, and they cannot borrow abroad in the domestic currency. Stiglitz (2002) protested against the liberalisation agenda being pushed too quickly on smaller states lacking proper financial institutions and banking systems, countries like Mexico and Argentina, which saw precipitous and blanket financial liberalisation (Phillips, 2005). It is now widely accepted that reform was too rapid, and the result of neo-liberal reform in Latin America has been a pattern of poor economic performance and increasing political tension. This lends weight to the argument that capital-rich states have much more to gain from the growth of the global financial system. What is important for the conclusions of this essay, however, is that it cannot simply be said that the advantages accrue to rich states and the disadvantages to the poor, as rich states, and their firms and individuals, suffer disadvantages from integration also. Advanced states, of course, also suffer from the effects of crisis and contagion. This has been evident from the fallout of the 2007 global crisis, but due to integration it is now increasingly difficult for all economies to insulate themselves against the effects of recession. Crisis in one area of the global economy means falling demand for goods and services in others, and with the scope of international firms, and the vast number of countries in which single firms do business means that collapses have far-reaching consequences. However, the biggest disadvantage in terms of advanced states is felt by their national industries and firms, those unable to shift production to areas of cheaper labour and production costs. National firms are becoming increasingly unable to compete with firms either in countries with such conditions, or international firms able to conduct business there. This is bad news for the industrial workers of advanced economies, who today can be easily replaced by cheaper counterparts around the globe. Implications the emerging global dichotomy These advantages and disadvantages show that there is a global dichotomy emerging. The principle beneficiaries of the integration brought about by the globalisation of finance are the controllers of capital, those able to move their resources freely around the global economy for the highest return and security. The principle losers are the capital-poor, whether labour or those with assets tied within national boundaries. While China has been one of the biggest beneficiaries economically from financial globalisation, its rising inequality shows that its poorest people, like many others around the world, remain subject to, rather than participants in, the global economy. The advantages and disadvantages discussed above demonstrate two critical characteristics of the global financial system. First, as internationally mobile capital has become more powerful, so have the holders of it in relation to other groups. The argument that capital now holds a structural power within the system has been advanced by scholars such as Gill and Law (1989), and Thomas and Sinclair (2002). The latter study argues that today the expectations of the resource-rich are anticipated by the resource-poor. In the modern system knowledge workers are fortunate, as they can move to wherever they command the highest salary. Others are manufacturing workers facing fierce competition from counterparts in numerous countries, and still others are subsistence workers trying to survive in a system moving towards broader commercialisation in areas like agriculture. This effect has been compounded by the tertiarisation of global economic activity (Phillips, 2005) brought about by financia l globalisation. There is a growing movement towards production and trade of services rather than goods, which produces a divergence between entities that can compete in the service sector and those that cannot. Second, the leadership role of the most economically powerful states, and the nature of the financial system they have created, has rendered alternative policies imprudent. Susan Stranges (1986) casino has many reluctant players. Capital mobility means sustainable macroeconomic policy options available to states are systematically circumscribed (Andrews, 1994); integration has raised the costs of pursuing policies that diverge from regional or international trends. The fact, as discussed, that there is so much to gain for investors means there is the same amount to lose for countries following policies detrimental to their profits, such as running budget deficits to fund welfare policies. The global financial system has been directed by an ideology of liberalisation since the 1970s, and the benefits for the capital-rich, the majority of those that lead the modern system, are too great for the direction to change. This could be the reason for the difference between the development of global trade and finance. Financial liberalisation has incredible advantages for capital-rich states, while with open trade LDCs have the advantages of cheap labour and export-led strategies. Advanced states have continued to protect their national industries with degrees of protectionism. While it is an extreme claim that rich states preserve the system because of the dichotomy this essay presents, the evidence is certainly that the major economies still believe whole-heartedly in the theory of globalisation, that its benefits justify this cost. The recent financial crisis has demonstrated that major states, particularly the USA and the UK, are willing to prop up a system that has shown significant disadvantages in contagion and volatility. This has been a stark example of the asymmetry between the capital-rich and the capital-poor in the event of crisis traders and investors regroup and take their capital to the safest location in order to resume the pursuit of high returns, while taxpayers and workers face austerity measures and unemployment as investment decreases. While the benefits for the developing world have been massive, these benefits are only received by integrating into a system whose disadvantages effect it in a disproportionate way, and which produces a dichotomy, the wrong side of which many of its people will remain. The economic theory behind globalisation still favours trickle-down development rather than bottom-up. The benefits cited by its chief proponents, such as the growth of LDC economies and global economic stability, are no doubt desirable, but they will require a truly global system with truly global markets, neither of which has yet been achieved. In the decades it will take for the global economy to become truly global and precipitate universal benefits, the gap between the capital-rich and capital-poor will continue to grow. Conclusions The global financial system has been heading in a single direction since the 1970s, towards liberalisation and the greater interdependence and interconnectedness of economies, firms and individuals around the globe. This direction was facilitated by the advanced industrial nations through political actions to free international capital, and expand and open global financial markets. Innovations in computing and telecommunications, as well as market innovations, have contributed heavily to the volume and velocity of international capital flows exploiting the volatility and uncertainty of the system. The emerging strategic interests of the USA, the UK, and later Japan, led them to promote a more open international financial order (Helleiner, 1994). The major economies interests still lie in this order, and thus they promote its advantages and push its neo-liberal agenda through international financial institutions and multilateral agreements. This enthusiasm is an indication that the advanced states, and the capital-rich firms and individuals that call them home, have much to gain from financial globalisation, but they also believe in the benefits the neo-liberal programme promises to all. The problem is that the universal benefits of financial globalisation will only fully materialise under the conditions of a truly global economy, with many more participants than there are currently. It is possible that as markets continue to expand to become truly global, more universal benefits will be seen, but the global dichotomy is likely to grow faster than financial markets and access to them. The challenge for the world economy as it moves forward is how to deal with the social aspect of this expansion.

advantages of presidential systems

advantages of presidential systems One of the advantages of a presidential system is that the head of state is usually elected through a direct mandate. In terms of democracy, this makes the presidents authority more legitimate as he is elected directly by the people as oppose to being appointed indirectly. Another advantage of a presidential system is the stability it brings as presidents are usually elected to fixed terms while a prime ministers government can fall at anytime. An example of this is in Canada; where in a minority government the leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff, could bring down Stephen Harpers government and has threatened to do so several times. This is in contrast to President Obamas tenure which is secure till the elections of 2012. Additionally, presidential system allow for the separation of powers as the legislature is a completely different structure and institution. This allows a system of checks and balances to be created, allowing one to monitor the other. Speed and decisiveness can be seen as a positive characteristic of a presidential system, as presidents usually have stronger constitutional powers allowing them to spearhead reform and enact change swiftly. Conversely, one advantage of a parliamentary system is that its faster and easier to pass legislation. This is because the executive branch is part of the legislative branch and is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of it as it usually comprised of members of the legislature. This can be seen in the Canadian system of government where the prime minister and his cabinet is also Member of Parliament. This segues into the advantage that parliamentary systems usually have a higher propensity for having unified governments, as minority governments are the minority. This adds to the governments ability to pass legislation more quickly, as it is rare for a majority government to have their own legislation defeated, as parliamentary system usually have greater party discipline. Moreover, the lack of a head of states veto power also allows legislation to pass more swiftly. Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that power is more evenly diverged. Constitutionally, the prime minister rarely has such high importance of a president. An example of this is how parliamentary systems allow MPs to directly question the prime minister and his government. Also, lower individual importance on the prime minster position can be seen through elections tendencies as there is a higher focus on political party ideas than on the actual person. Lastly, the advantage of the government technically being able to dissolve at any time allows the government to be more accountable and viable. This allows parliament to replace a government or a prime minister if he or she has been lackluster or detrimental to the country. This allows for practicable governments to continue governing while ineffective ones can be disposed of. Disadvantages to a presidential system include tendencies towards authoritarianism. Because of the overarching power given to one person, presidential systems could quickly transform into authoritarian regimes if circumstances permit. Also the centralization of authority could lead to the president becoming a more influential figure in society and the media. This high priority on the president could lower and undermine civic participation as people might feel they cannot play an active role in lawmaking or place a lower significance on the legislative branches of government relative to the executive. Furthermore, separation of powers is also seen as a disadvantage of the presidential system as it might create gridlock and stalemates within the government. One example of this could be if the President continues to veto bills that the legislature ratifies, impeding government from passing laws. This can be seen in 1995 when Democrat Bill Clinton was president with a Republican controll ed Congress. The government could not get consensus on anything, not even on a budget. Lastly, impediments to leadership change can be seen as another disadvantage as it can be more difficult to remove an unsuitable president from office before her term is concluded, creating a potential situation where an idol or unhelpful president could not be removed and be replaced a better alternative. On the other hand, disadvantages to a parliamentary system include that the head of government is usually not directly elected. This is because the prime minister is typically elected by the legislature or the party in power, which normally means the party leadership. In addition, another disadvantage in the parliamentary system is that there is no independent body to oppose and veto legislation approved by parliament, and thus a lack of a cohesive checks and balance system. Also, because of the shortage in the separation of powers, parliamentary systems could instill too much power in the executive. This is because MPs usually have to adhere to parliamentary discipline, and cannot vote based on their own judgments or constituencies. Furthermore, as elections in parliamentary systems usually result in a majority government, this could lead to the tyranny of the majority resulting in the minority parties to be marginalized as they would have little to no input in government legislatio n. Moreover, parliamentary systems can be seen as inherently unstable, if minority governments are elected and coalition governments are formed as the government can be brought down at any time. Opponents of the parliamentary system point to Japans recent instabilities and constant replacing of prime ministers as well as Weimar Germany as examples where unstable coalitions, belligerent minority parties, and constant threats of the government being voted down by opposition parties. Lastly, the parliamentary system lack of a definite election calendar can be mistreated to allow parties to gain political advantages. The governing party can schedule elections with relative freedom, and avoid elections when it is unpopular. Indeed, in a Canadian context, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defeated his own government because polls showed that he had the ability to win a majority at the time. This gives an unfair advantage to ruling parties who can stave off defeat or increase their mandate at the expense of the opposition parties. The influence of a presidential system on politics can be seen through the stronger role of the president i as well as the gridlock that can be experienced when passing legislation. This is opposed to the parliamentary system and how a prime minister usually has a smaller role in politics while parliament is typically quick in passing legislation and avoiding gridlock. First, the president usually becomes a national figure, which represents the government regardless of the effectiveness of legislation. As policies are harder to pinpoint compared to parliamentary systems, a president usually receives all criticism and blame on legislation passed, regardless if the party passed it or not. However in parliamentary systems, the governing party usually receives praise and criticism for legislation passed with not everything being placed upon the prime minister. This segues into the president is the head of state, and performing ceremonial roles as well as being the commander in chief of t he armed forces. He also plays an active role in the government by setting out a governments agenda especially if her party is also in control of the legislature. This differs from parliamentary system as there is a more visible separation of head of state and head of government. An example of this is the Queen in the UK who almost exclusively performs ceremonial roles. The Queen by convention does not veto any legislation passed by the government, as she does not have that legitimacy given through the electorate. This differs from the prime minister who is directly involved in the lawmaking organs of parliament. The president in a presidential system is almost like the center part of a venn-diagram as she possesses the ceremonial part of the head of state while playing active role in the government process like a prime minister. Another influence that a president has on parliament is his role in the checks in balance system. The United States government is must more used to gridloc k and stalemates between the levels of government and even between to the two houses as that is how the system is set up to me. This is in contrast where legislation is Canada can be passed rather rapidly especially if the party has a majority government. This presidential system influences the way representatives behave as they

The Representation of Minorities in American Cinema Essay -- Movies Fi

The Representation of Minorities in American Cinema As the semester progressed and we continued learning how Latinos have been misrepresented through American cinema during the twentieth century, I began to wonder about my own heritage and how Jews were portrayed in films of the same era. I grew up learning about the various stereotypes that have been associated with Jews throughout history, but never have I explored the portrayals of Jews through film history in the United States. My curiosity led me to research Hollywood’s image of the Jew, providing me with a better understanding of the role Jews and Jewish family life have played in American Cinema from the very beginnings of film history. I was able to relate the facts about the representation of Jews in the media to what we have studied this semester about the representation of Latinos and Latinas. Although in class we focused on the portrayals of different Latin American cultures in American film, we must realize that other minorities, social classes, and ethnic groups were mistreated by cinema as well. As Keller states, "One of the side effects of American cinema was often crushingly brutal portrayals of other races and cultures, depictions that spread to larger audiences than ever before possible around the nation and even around the globe" (Keller, 5). Overall, the American film industry felt it necessary to depict all characters but the dominant Anglo in a negative light. "In short", Keller explains, "white Americans believed in the superiority of the white race and depicted this superiority on the silver screen. Every other race was evaluated in relationship to the attainments of the white race and with respect to its approximation to the white race whic... ...//www.grapevinevideo.com/fairbanks.htm The Mark of Zorro. Produced by United Artists and Douglas Fairbanks Productions; directed by Fred Niblo, 1920. Cortes, Carlos E. "Chicanas in Film: History of an Image". Rodriguez, Clara E. Latin Looks. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998. Pp.121-139 Flying Down to Rio. Directed by Herbert Brenon. Produced by Louis Zarecky, 1932. All Movie Guide, Dolores Del Rio. http://www.allmovie.com/cg/x.exe?p=avg&sql=bp18330 Mexican Spitfire. Directed by Leslie Goodwins. Produced by Cliff Reid, 1939. Erens, Patricia. The Jew in American Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Friedman, Lester D. Hollywood's Image of the Jew. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1982. Hangin' With the Homeboys. Directed by Joseph Vasquez, 1991. West Side Story. Directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, 1961.

Utilitarianism Essay -- criticisms of utilitarianism

This essay will present the key features of Utilitarianism and identify the problems of Utilitarianism to the extent to which they make Utilitarianism unacceptable. Jeremy Bentham founded Utilitarianism. He lived at a time of great change. With revolutions in France and America, demands were being made for human rights and greater democracy. Bentham worked on legal reform. Utilitarianism is associated with the principle of utility. Utility means the amount of satisfaction or pleasure that somebody gains from consuming a commodity, product, or service, i.e.; useful. The hedonic calculus, which is his system for measuring how good or bad a consequence is: At the time Bentham put forward the theory it was instrumental. It changed the way society was run and the way society now thinks for the better. It dramatically made changes to the poverty in Britain positively. Theories that are interested in the ends are known as teleological. Telos is Greek for the end. Therefore teleological means that the ends justify the means, utilitarianism follows this rule. Utilitarianism is the greatest goodness for the greatest number of people. The rightness of actions depends on their utility, and the utility is measured by the consequences, simply meaning the greatest good by moral actions. If the consequences are good, then the moral actions are not as relevant. A positive example is â€Å"Lucy wins the lottery. Instead of keeping it all to herself, Lucy decides to share it out with some of her friends, because she thinks it will make them happy.† Lucy is doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people and is doing it using goodness ... ...people’s common agreement about what is pleasure and what is pain. There are problems concerning what some people would consider pleasurable and what others would consider not pleasurable. Problems arise such as taste in music, hobbies and beliefs. In conclusion Utilitarianism has its political benefits, but is not clear enough with some aspects. It doesn’t show what is unacceptable in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism doesn’t have the flexibility of considering individual circumstances and moral values have no consideration in this theory. Utilitarianism is focused on quantity rather than quality. It seems rather a simple theory ‘the greatest good, for the greatest number of people’, however when you delve into the theory it becomes rather too complicated. For people to live by a theory it needs to be simple and clear.

Bilingual Education Act Essay -- Bilingual Education, languages, fore

Bilingual education is defined as involving the use of two languages as media of intrusions (May, 2008). It is an educational process that aims to promote and â€Å"maintain longer-term student bilingualism and bi-literacy, adding another language to, but not subtracting from the student’s existing language repertoire† (May, 2008, p. 19-20). Simply, bilingual education is the use of more than one language to deliver curriculum content. Bilingual education Act (BEA) was enacted into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of the War on Poverty. The policy expressed U.S. commitment to the needs of the growing number of children in the public schools whose first language was not English (Petrzela, 2010). This commitment was articulated as President Johnson signed the bill into law: Thousands of children of Latin descent, young Indians, and others will get a better start— better chance—in school. . . .We are now giving every child in America a better chance to touch his outermost limits. . . . We have begun a campaign to unlock the full potential of every boy and girl—regardless of his race, or his religion, or his father’s income. (Sanchez, 1973) Bilingual education policy is political activity replete with historical, social, cultural, and economic contexts (Crawford, 2000; Tolleson & Tsui, 2004). It is linked to legislation, court decisions, and executive actions. (Gandara & Gomez, 2009). The BEA came at an exceptional period of domestic upheaval, demographic transformation, and on the heel of the civil right movement. The Act created a channel to provide states and local education districts with funds, personnel assistance, and other incentives for the development of bilingual education program. Purpose of... ...on helped direct large sums of federal money into education for space research, and language programs. The Soviet launching of Sputniks seemed to overshadow race, religion, state rights and other issues that had blocked previous attempts (Forrest & Kinser, 2002). One of the great accomplishment of the time was the passage the National Defense Education Act, 1958 (NDEA). This act provided aid to both public and private schools at all levels to advance the areas of science, math, and modern foreign languages. The act also provided aid to English as a Second Language programs. According to Forrest and Kinser: The importance of the NDEA rests not on its specific provisions, but on its psychological breakthrough. For the first time in nearly a century, the federal government displayed interest in the quality of education that public and private provided. (p. 240)

Literature Local and Foriegn Essay

The story is told in flashbacks as Emilio Aguinaldo thanks the US government for giving him the opportunity to attend the full restoration of Philippine independence on July 4, 1946. The film begins with his capture by Philippine and US forces under Frederick Funston’s command in 1901, then flashes back to 1886, when an old woman gives Aguinaldo and childhood friend Candido Tirona cryptic prophecies. Ten years later, Aguinaldo is inducted into the Katipunan and later assumes leadership of its Cavite chapter while becoming mayor of Cavite El Viejo. When trouble breaks out in Manila in late August 1896, Aguinaldo tries to assure the Spanish provincial government of non-interference and covertly marshals his forces despite a lack of weapons. Learning that the Spanish mostly put their forces in Manila, Aguinaldo finally mobilizes his troops and take the fight to Spanish troops in Cavite. As the rebels gain ground in Cavite and several provinces, its Magdalo and Magdiwang factions convene to elect a provisional government. Andres Bonifacio oversees the Tejeros Convention, which elects Aguinaldo as president, Mariano Trias as vice-president, and himself as interior minister. He storms out of the convention when Daniel Tirona objects to his election. Aguinaldo’s brother Crispulo informs him of his accession and convinces him to leave his troops just as he was seeking to defend against the Spaniards at Pasong Santol. The rebels are defeated and Crispulo is killed. Meanwhile, an embittered Bonifacio establishes his own revolutionary government and is later arrested. Aguinaldo is concerned about Bonifacio’s actions and wanted him exiled, but the War Council advises his execution. Several months later, Aguinaldo leaves Cavite with most of his forces intact and makes it to Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan, where he signs the Pact of Biak-na-Bato and heads for Hong Kong. There he meets with US officials who approach him with offers of support and recognition of a new Philippine Republic amidst the Spanish-American War. Aguinaldo returns to the Philippines and formally declares independence from Spain. As the Malolos Congress convenes, Felipe Agoncillo tries to represent the new nation at the Treaty of Paris negotiations, but gets stonewalled at every turn even as US forces gradually arrive in the Philippines. The Philippine-American War breaks out in February 1899 and Antonio Luna is appointed commander of all Filipino troops. He is assassinated three months later and the Filipino troops are gradually routed by the Americans. As a result, Aguinaldo’s forces travel all over northern Luzon to escape the Americans. General Gregorio del Pilar volunteers to lead some troops in holding them off at Tirad Pass and buy Aguinaldo time to get away. His loyal courier is later captured by the Americans while getting some medicine for his son. Now aware of Aguinaldo’s hideout, Funston plans his capture. Having been made to accept US rule over the Philippines, Aguinaldo lives a quiet life, which is marred by Hilaria’s passing in 1921. He meets and marries Felipe Agoncillo’s niece Maria in 1930. Over the next few decades, the couple witness Philippine history unfold once more as he is defeated in the 1935 presidential elections, Japanese occupation and the restoration of full independence. In 1962, an elderly Aguinaldo and his wife comfort each other over President Diosdado Macapagal’s decree to restore the actual date of the Philippine declaration of independence. In his final hours, the same woman who gave him his prophecy appears to him one more time. The movie is partly based on Aguinaldo’s Memoirs of the Revolution. Writer-director Mark Meily states that the project had its genesis back in 1998. Over the intervening years, careful research was made in order to accurately portray Aguinaldo’s life, especially facts that have been glossed over in history books. These include his conduct over the trial of the Bonifacio brothers and his other actions during the Revolution. Meily himself was brought into the project as director after Ejercito pledged never to work with original director Tikoy Aguiluz because of their rift over editing Manila Kingpin. Shooting took place over 43 days at select locations in Cavite, Laguna, and Bulacan, with the Las Casas Filipinas de Azucar in Bataan substituting for urban scenes. Critical reception The movie garnered mixed reviews. The Philippines’ Cinema Evaluation Board graded the film at A. [5] Phillip Cu-Unjieng of the Philippine Star said it â€Å"vividly recaptures† one of the Philippines’ most turbulent periods in history by exposing the infighting among the Katipunan’s members and how Aguinaldo wanted to resolve them. He noted that the film’s quality makes it almost stand out as much as Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, and Martin Scorsese’s The Aviator. [6] Philibert Ortiz-Dy said making the film was tricky, but dragged towards the end. [7] The movie garnered most of the awards at the 2012 Metro Manila Film Festival, winning the plums for Second Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Cesar Montano), Youth Choice Award, Best Float, Best Sound, Best Musical Score, and Best Make-up.[8] Columnist and radio show host Jessica Zafra, however, was critical of the movie’s treatment. She said the depiction of Bonifacio’s death raised questions about its authenticity. She added that the film itself â€Å"does Emilio Aguinaldo a disservice by portraying him as a victim of circumstance† and even highlighted the â€Å"amnesia† prevalent among contemporary Filipinos.