Civil liberties during war-time Essay Example for Free

Civil liberties during war-time Essay Civil Liberties are for example freedom of speech and freedom of the press as defined by the first amendment. These freedoms have been challenged by the threat of war, but should they be taken away because of it? The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. These are our civil liberties that we are promised as citizens of the U.S. In the past these liberties have been interfered with. The main cause for this interference was war. The government wanted to abolish any chances of treason or leaking of information to the enemies and to do this they passed act such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to write, print, speak, or publish anything false or untrue about to United States. We can understand how certain precautions must be made to insure safety in times of war but to go so far as to take away our freedoms are out of bounds. There are numerous other ways to make us safe without interfering with our liberties. For example: tighter security. After 9/11 security became very tight at airports and other areas where terrorists might be able to enter the country. Although this extra security was tedious and time consuming to get through, it was well within the lines of the 1st amendment because it did not take away any of our freedoms. I do not believe that our civil liberties should be taken away during wartime. This is a democracy and should remain one whether engaged in war or not. The government can think of more ways to protect us other than limiting our freedoms of speech or of the press, and certainly without interfering with our privacy unless there is just cause to do so.

The Incarnation Of Jesus Christ

The Incarnation Of Jesus Christ Introduction The incarnation of Jesus Christ has been a subject of attention from the earliest decades of the formation of the Christian Church. It has not been without its subsequent controversies. Several early councils were convened to address the various issues regarding the Godhead and in particular, the person and nature of Christ. Of these, the fourth great council of Chalcedon established the parameters of the person and nature of Christ in the orthodox view.  [1]  In an attempt to articulate the person and nature of Christ, the German theologian Gottfried Thomasius published a work between 1853 and 1861 entitled: Christi Person und Werk (Christs Person and Work).  [2]  In this essay, Thomasius called attention to the Greek word kenosis found in Philippians 2:7 in demonstrating his theory of the emptying of Christ during the incarnation. Thomasius view of kenosis contributed considerably to the interest in the incarnation principles of Christology. His work became the basis for fu rther studies into what is more commonly called Kenotic theology. This paper will attempt to show that Thomasius view of kenosis is not completely consistent with the formula of Chalcedon and did not adequately comply with the orthodox principles of the incarnation. Development of Systematic Theology As the early church began to grow so did varying opinions as men began to think about the doctrines of scripture in a systematic way. Was Jesus God? First-century Christians saw that the answer was not simple. Nature is not simple, so why then should we expect the Creator of nature be simple?  [3]   Within the first four hundred years of Christianity there arose six major heresies and they all involved an aspect of the person of Christ.  [4]  Then, as now, there are doctrines, which men wrestle with and that still divide themselves over. Even today there are those who would say that some things are too complex to fully understand such as Robertson McQuilkin who said, As we approach the Bible intent on discovering all the truth God intends for us to understand, we should examine our expectations and attitudes, as there are limitations on what is possible.  [5]   Not withstanding, it is the obligation of every Christian to search out the truths of Gods word and to faithfully study it in order to build a competent system of beliefs. With regard to the person and nature of Christ, the words of Millard Erickson ring all the more true when he said, All departures from the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ are simply variations of one of these [six] heresies. While we may have difficulty specifying exactly the content of this doctrine, full fidelity to teaching of Scripture will carefully avoid each of these distortions.  [6]   The Council of Chalcedon The early councils of the Christian church were ecumenical gatherings of church leaders and scholars who were brought together in order to address the issues that divided the church and sought to set forth declarations that defined the proper understanding of these controversial theological issues that had an impact on the church. Each of the great councils formulated certain dogma about these issues of controversy, which then became the orthodox view of the Christian church. Concerning the first great council of Nicea, Norman Geisler states, The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) states the uniform belief of all orthodox Christianity that Christ was fully God and fully Man. All heresies regarding Christ deny one or the other of these.  [7]  One of the utmost important issues to the Church was, and rightfully should have been, a proper understanding of the person and nature of Christ. In regard to the council of Chalcedon, which was convened in 451, J. H. Hall wrote: The work of Chalcedon can be understood only in the light of a series of Christological declarations beginning with the Council of Nicea (325). The Nicene Creed declared that Christ is of the same divine substance with the Father, against Arius, who taught that Christ had a beginning and was only of similar substance. The Council of Constantinople (381) both ratified and refined the Nicene Creed, in opposition to continuing Arianism, and declared against Apollinarianism, which stated that Christs human soul had been replaced by the divine Logos. Moreover, Constantinople declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  [8]   As questions continued to grow about the nature of Christ in the incarnation, so did controversy. The preceding councils established the churches opinion with regard to the deity of Christ that He is indeed of the same substance as the father. Later questions arose with respect to the human side and divine side of the nature of Christ. The Nestorian view held to a separation of the two natures of Christ as opposed to the Eutychian view, which theorized that Christ had only one nature.  [9]  The Nestorian view was rejected at the council of Ephesus but Eutychianism was later embraced. Seeing the continued discord, Pope Leo I instigated Emperor Marcion to call a new council and it was decided that it would be held in the city of Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon achieved three important things. J.H. Hall states, First, it reaffirmed the Nicene tradition; second, it accepted as orthodox the letters of Cyril and Leo; and third, it provided a definition of the faith.  [10]  Hall continues, There existed two overarching concerns- maintenance of the unity of Christs person and establishment of the two natures of Christ.  [11]   The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem attribute a section of Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 118, c. AD 374, as being that which contained the Nicene creed which was read and approved at Chalcedon.  [12]  What Chalcedon effectively achieved was setting forth certain parameters about the nature of Christ. That which is formulated to the understanding of these two natures must therefore fall within these parameters in order to remain orthodox. In setting these parameters of orthodoxy, certain attributes must be maintained. One of the most important issues involves immutability. The Definition of Chalcedon sustained the continued immutability of Christ. The council declaration was as follows: Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the sa me son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.  [13]   The Chalcedonian Creed provided the church with a statement that Christ indeed possessed two distinct natures, both a human side and divine side and that he existed in one person in an unchangeable way.  [14]   Gottfried Thomasiuss view of kenosis In the first part of the 19th century, when Ferdinand Baur became professor of theology at Germanys Tubingen University, he [following in the footsteps of G.W.F. Hegel] began in earnest to attack the historical credibility of the New Testament and in particular the Gospel of John.  [15]  But after a series of textual and archeological finds, Adolf von Harnack, who himself once sympathized with Baur, rejected his assumptions stating in 1897 that, The assumptions of Baurs school, one can almost say, are now wholly abandoned.  [16]  This confrontation sparked by the rise of modern criticism produced many such debates and it serves to illustrate the theological climate within which Gottfried Thomasius and other German theologians wrote. Gottfried Thomasius was a Lutheran theologian who in the mid-eighteen hundreds, attempted to develop an acceptable Christology that could withstand the criticism of his day.  [17]  In an attempt to do so, he published his Christi Person und Werk. David Law states, The first edition of Christi Person und Werk appeared between 1853 and 1861. Because of the criticism leveled at the early volumes of the first edition, Thomasius began revisions for the second edition before all three volumes of the first edition had appeared. The second edition was published between 1856 and 1863. A third and abridged edition, edited after Thomasiuss death by F.J. Winter, was published between 1886 and 1888, but it is the second edition that is regarded as the mature and authoritative statement of Thomasisus kenotic Christology.  [18]   Subsequent publications showed Thomasiuss efforts to expound on his notion of kenosis. David Law states, In Beitrag Thomasius argued that the tensions within Lutheran Christology could be resolved only by reformulating the doctrine of the person of Christ in terms of a self-limitation of the Logos.  [19]  In essence this self-limitation is the idea behind Thomasiuss view of kenosis. Law gives a more defined description of this idea stating, It was above all Thomasiuss contribution to kenotic Christology that established him as a major theologian. The noun kenosis and the adjective kenotic are derived from the use of the term ekenosen in Phil. 2:7, where we read of Christ Jesus who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself [heauton ekenosen], taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. On the basis of the use of the term ekenosen in this text, kenosis has come to be used as shorthand for a series of issues arising from the claim that Christ is both truly divine and truly human. How can divinity and humanity coexist in the one, united person of Christ without undermining the integrity of either nature? Kenotic christologies are those christologies which attempt to address this problem by arguing that Christ emptied himself of some aspect of his divine nature in order to become a human being.  [20]   The notion of Christ emptying himself of some aspect of the divine nature in an act of self-limitation has serious significance and questions the immutability of God the Son. This comes into direct contradiction with the statement of Chalcedon in several key areas. First, Chalcedon established that the incarnation of Christ did not change, effect or diminish any attributes of deity Christ had before the incarnation. He is without changeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [21]  . Secondly, Chalcedon affirmed the distinction of natures, being no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature, being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.  [22]  The orthodox view is that the incarnation of Christ did not constitute a loss of any aspect of his divine nature, through the act of kenosis or any other such theory. Kenotic Theology Although Thomasiuss influence and that of kenotic Christology in general gave way in Germany in the 1880s to Ritschlianism, kenotic Christology enjoyed a second flowering in Britain.  [23]  In the years following, interest would subside but then unexpectedly grow again as theologians once again reexamine the kenotic theory. In recent years there has been a renewed interest in kenotic Christology (see, for example, Evans, 2006). Any current attempt to formulate a coherent and viable kenotic Christology will need to return to Thomasiuss work, above all to his Christi Person und Werk.  [24]  . In Christian Theology Millard Erickson gives his definition of kenoticism stating, The second Person of the Trinity laid aside his distinctly divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.), and took on human qualities instead.  [25]  In this view, Jesus is not God and man simultaneously, but successively. Kenoticism implies that Jesus is both God and man, just not at the same time.  [26]   Others have thought to develop the position of kenoticism in not such an abrogated way. Instead they incorporate the idea into a more mild form of kenotic theology. In a review of Michael J. Gormans Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls Narrative Soteriology, Timothy G. Gombis of Cedarville University states, In chapter 1, Gorman develops Pauls master story that demonstrates the kenotic character of Jesus Christ and reveals the very identity of God as kenotic. He focuses on Phil 2:5-11 and argues, based on a thorough exegetical treatment of the passage, that the pattern although [x] not [y] but [z] reveals the narrative trajectory of the kenosis of Jesus. By this, Gorman means although [status] not [selfishness] but [selflessness] (p.16). Jesus Christ had status as God himself but did not exploit this, using it for his own comfort of personal gain. Rather, he pursued several progressively degrading positions on a movement of downward mobility, going eventually to the publicly shameful death on a cross (pp. 16-17). For Gorman, this passage is not properly understood to mean that Christ did this despite the fact that he was in the form of God. Rather, Christ pursued this path because he was in the form of God. In other words, and this is a crucial point for Gorman, Christs being in the form of God is most clearly seen in his self-emptying and self-expenditure (p. 25). In this sense, the very character of God is kenotic (self-emptying) and cruciform (cross-shaped).  [27]   In this passage, the reviewer (Gombis) notes that the author (Gorman) thinks the kenotic passages are not clearly understood. Noting this misrepresentation, he suggests a proper view of kenotic theology. Whether or not Gorman is true in his assumptions remains speculative however it does illustrate the contemporary effort to redefine the implications inherent in kenotic theology. Classical Theology The more classical view of the person and nature of Christ are theologies based more on the Chalcedonian formula and are replete in the theological community. Some theologians have attempted to address the problem of formulating an acceptable understanding of the human and divine nature of Christ always keeping a wary eye upon the parameters of the orthodox or Chalcedonian understanding of the incarnation. From the abstract of Robin Le Poidevins Identity and the composite Christ: an Incarnational delemma, the author states, One way of understanding the reduplicative formula Christ is, qua God, omniscient, but qua man, limited in knowledge is to take the occurrences of the qua locution as picking out different parts of Christ: a divine part and a human part. But this view of Christ as a composite being runs into paradox when combined with the orthodox understanding, adopting a philosophically and theologically contentious perdurantist account of persistence through time, or rejecting altogether the idea of the composite Christ.  [28]   Here the author points out a formula of Christology of the human and divine natures but at the same time, recognizes that it conflicts paradoxically with the Chalcedonian parameters of the incarnation. In this respect, many theologians still show deference to and recognize the importance of the Chalcedonian councils definitive statement. The Chalcedonian parameters have been a staple in guiding theological thought for centuries. George P. Pardington, who was a well-esteemed professor of theology among the Christian Alliance, makes this clear. In his theology primer Outline Studies in Christian Doctrine, He deals with passages in Philippians 2:6,7 and other verses that show the nature of the preexistence of Christ and the incarnations, stating, These and other phrases express ineffable relationships within the Godhead, which we cannot comprehend. On Phil. 2:6 Thayers Greek Lexicon says: Form (Greek, morphe) is that by which a person or thing strikes the vision, the external appearance. There is nothing in this passage, which teaches that the Eternal Word (John 1:1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature of His attributes, but only of the outward visible manifestation of the Godhead. He emptied, stripped Himself, of the insignia of Majesty (Lightfoot). When occasion demanded, He exercised His divine attributes (Moorehead).  [29]   Pardingtons view of the kenotic passages in no way contradicts the Chalcedonian parameters since Christ did not give up any of his divine nature or attributes. Contemporary Debate Roger Olsen has noted that the differing opinions among evangelicals. He states, Kenotic Christology-emphasizing the need to take with utmost seriousness Jesus true humanity, including limited consciousness- has made significant inroads among evangelicals, while other evangelical theologians have resisted and criticized it.  [30]  Olsen continues to describe what he characterizes as a very heated debate among more progressive and conservative Evangelicals stating, As recently as the mid-1990s heresy charges were thrown by conservative evangelicals at more moderate and progressive ones who dared to use the kenotic motif in writing about the incarnation.  [31]   Theologians who reaffirm the Chalcedon formula would be Bernard Ramm and Carl Henry.  [32]  Examples of some who are more outspoken against kenoticism would be Thomas V, Morris, Donald Bloesch, Millard Erickson and Stanley Grenz.  [33]  While Grenz is somewhat critical of kenotic theology, he nevertheless does not espouse the traditional Chalcedon formula either.  [34]  Olsen states, Two evangelical theologians who have attempted to push the frontiers of Christology are Clark Pinnock and Stanley Grenz. Both affirm that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly human, but they are dissatisfied with the classical expression of that belief in Chalcedonian Christology (hypostatic union). They are not so much interested in rejecting it as in supplementing it with new and more helpful thought forms. People today, they argue, are not as tuned as ancient people were to the substance ontologies of Greek metaphysics, and the times call for a new expression of the doctrine of Jesus Christs humanity and divinity.  [35]   While the purpose of this paper is not to critique the various forms of Christology espoused by many theologians among the ranks of evangelicals (and they are many), it is however concerned with the classical Chalcedonian formula of the incarnation, and whether or not kenotic theology adheres to it and why this is important. While there are those who strongly support the Chalcedonian formula, there are others who feel that it is flawed. Roger Olsen notes that both Clark Pinnock and Stanley Grenz are dissatisfied with the classical expression of that belief in Chalcedonian Christology (hypostatic union).  [36]  He once again points to the work of Stanley Grenz to illustrate this stating, Grenz argues in Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000) that classical Incarnational Christology falls short biblically and logically and revises it using the eschatological ontology (the future as the locus of being) of German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. According to Grenz, Jesus Christ is the Logos, who is not to be thought of as preexisting and then descending into human history but as revealing God and therefore belonging to the eternity of God by virtue of his resurrection.  [37]  [Emphasis is Olsens]. Olsen continues with his critique of Grenz showing how it is at variance with classical Christology. This is where the debate becomes relevant to this research with respect to the Chalcedonian formula. Olsen states, The main difference between this Christology and classical Christology [Chalcedonian] lies in its denial of a logos asarkos discarnate or preincarnate Logos or Son of God. For Grenz, Jesus Christ is the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. Whatever tensions or problems may exist in Pinnocks and Grenzs Christology, they are not so much revisions of the hypostatic union as restatements of the basic Christological vision in new terms.  [38]   The abandoning of the basic tenants of the Chalcedonian formula present some extreme difficulties, particularly in light of the doctrine of the Preexistence of Christ which was affirmed at Chalcedon. One of the issues in regard to the nature of Christ concerns his Consciousness. When did Christ come to the realization of who he was? Theologians like Myer Pearlman were more content to leave this question open stating, Just exactly when and how this self-consciousness came must remain a mystery to us. When we think of God coming to us in the form of a man we must reverently exclaim, Great is the mystery of godliness!  [39]  Erickson would say, There were within his person dimensions of experience, knowledge and love not found in human beings. We must recognize that in dealing with Christ, he was more than just a man. He had and maintained all the qualities of a divine nature and a sinless human nature as well.  [40]   Another important issue that must be addressed is that the hypostatic union is permanent and everlasting. What Christ became in the incarnation is what he shall remain eternally (Heb 2:17, 7:24).  [41]  This is a problem for the kenotic view of Christ since that in the kenotic view, according to Erickson.  [42]  Jesus is both God and man, just not at the same time. This would imply a doing away with what Jesus became in the incarnation after his ascension and glorification. Conclusion The question that this research is concerned with may be answered by saying that Gottfried Thomasiuss original view of kenosis is not completely consistent with the formula of Chalcedon and did not adequately comply with the orthodox principles of the incarnation. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Byfield, Ted. ed., The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years Edmonton: Christian Millennial History Project, 2002. Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998. Geisler, Norman L. When Skeptics Ask: a handbook on Christian Evidences Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing, 2008. Gombis, Timothy G. in review of Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls Narrative Soteriology, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Is. 4 2009, p. 866. Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity vol.1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation New York: Harper Collins, 1984. Hall, J.H., Chalcedon, Council of (451), in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Law, David R. Gottfried Thomasius (1802-1875) in The Blackwell Companion to the Theologians Volume 2, ed. Ian S. Markham Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Le Poidevin, Robin. Identity and the composite Christ: an Incarnational dilemma, in Religious Studies, Cambridge: Vol. 45, Is. 2 2009, p. 167. McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible Chicago: Moody Press, 1992. Mitchell, Daniel R. The Unity of the Person of Christ, Class lecture, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, April 15, 2010. Olsen, Roger E. The Westminster handbook to Evangelical Theology Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Pardington, George P. Outline Studies in Christian Doctrine Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1926. Pearlman, Myer. Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible Springfield: Gospel Publishing, 1981.

The relationship between board diversity and firm performance

The relationship between board diversity and firm performance The Research Questions In the course of their research on the Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom, Miller and Triana sought to answers the questions bothering on the relationship between board diversity and firm performance using mediating variables reputation and innovation and how board diversity impact firm performance using mediating variables of innovation and reputation. Theoretical Framework Underpinning the Study There are two theories underpinning the study and these are: the Behavioural Theory and the Signaling Theory (Miller and Triana 2009). The behavioural theory as proposed by Cyert and March (cited in Miller and Triana, 2009) suggests that there is a direct correlation between the availability and use of information in a decision-making process and innovation in a groups decision. In other words, the more the information available, the better the decision making process will be which leads to creativity. Arthurs, Busenitz, Hoskisson and Johnson (2008) view signaling as a way of bringing to notice the innate worth or value of a firm and that any signal must be noticeable and hard to emulate or replicate. The Signaling Theory posits that firms use visible signals to gain reputation and status among the public (Miller and Triana 2009: 756). Methodology In testing their hypotheses, Miller and Triana presented three sets of variables: independent variables, dependent variables and control variables. The independent variables which were board diversity, innovation and firm reputation were investigated using Blaus index (1977) of heterogeneity, Research and development expenses as proxies and 2004 Fortune Corporate Reputation Survey accordingly. The dependent variable; Firm Performance was measured using and Return on investment and Return on sales and finally, Control variables which as key components were vital to the research and they were firm age, liquidity, size, product and international diversification. The research explored the empirical link between these variables and four hundred and thirty two Fortune 500 firms which were selected in investigating innovation as mediating factor between board diversity and firm performance and also three hundred and twenty six Fortune 1000 firms which were selected to investigate reputation as mediating factor between board diversity and firm performance. The result from the test of the various hypotheses was then analysed using the Least Squares (OLS) Regression (pg 768). The methods of research were disputable and therefore open to further research due to two noticeable reasons. First, the inconsistency and ambiguity in the selected year of assessment. The research explored the empirical linkage of board diversity, reputation, innovation, and performance (pg 765) but did not specify a year or period of assessment for which they gathered their data. Example, sample of firms selected were for year 2003, measurement of board diversity was for year 2002, measurement of innovation using research and development expenses were for year 2003, measurement of reputation were for 2003 and finally firm performance is measured in 2005, lagged two years to allow time for mediating effects of reputation and innovation to occur (pg 767). The effect of this inconsistency is that it would be difficult to know the accuracy of result arrived at. Rather it would have been a lot of easier if the various data gathered were being assessed for a period of time e.g. data betw een years 2002 and 2005 to ensure uniformity in the assessment. Secondly the sample of Fortune 500 firms chosen were because these firms represent leaders in their industryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.had external reports listing the race of board members as a way of validating data (pg 765) but no mention was made on a report of gender of board members. Result The answer to question bothering on the relationship between board diversity and firm performance using mediating variables reputation and innovation was striking as the authors were of the opinion that increasing diversity on the board leads to more varied ideas, perspectives and networks (Miller and Triana 2009:764). In other words, in a multitude of opinions as a result of diversity, cogent and innovative ideas usually emanate. This view is supported by Hillman, Cannella and Harris (2001) where they reasoned that each director is unique and different and when all their skills and proficiencies are put together, various ideas spring forth which could enhance firms performance. However, Adams and Ferreira (2008:305) argue that the more dissimilar directors are, the more they could disagree and the more conflict there could be on the board which could eventually impede firms performance. The result for the question on how board diversity impact firm performance using mediating variables: innovation and reputation proved arguable as the authors posits having a gender and racially diverse board signals that the firm is well positioned to meet the needs of a diverse market (Miller and Triana 2009: 762) but from the test of their hypotheses, it was discovered that there was no correlation between gender diversity and reputation (pg 775). This could have been as a result of the method of research which could have led to a biased opinion. Dalton and Dalton (2010) observed that there has been a lot of criticism and reservation due to the presence and achievement of women on Fortune 500 boards. This shows that generally the opinion that women can hold positions of top management is still not been accepted by multitudes. However, Krishnan and Park (2004) argued that the presence of women as leaders is usually appreciated in an environment that calls for a lot public relations and that they are able to break grounds in an otherwise impossible situation due the emotional side of their personality which results in them working with a lot of passion. Conclusion The research was interesting as it provided the first empirical analysis of the correlation between boardroom diversity and firm performance using innovation and reputation as mediators. However, the research involved the use of secondary data i.e. data collected by someone else and most likely be subject to sample limitations (Anonymous 2008). This could infer that data collected were collated originally for a different purpose and therefore be biased. Also the research highlights that diversity using mediating factors innovation and reputation has benefits as Cox and Blake (1991:45) reasoned that a well managed, diverse workforce (board) holds potential competitive advantages for organizations but for it to be fruitful and effective, it comes with a price and firms have to be able to look at their structures and be guided in their cultural needs; either gender or racial and be able to discern between what is needful or unnecessary as Slater, Weigand and Zwirlein (2008) argued that achieving productive diversity is not easy and that diversity if not managed properly usually leads to a high level of turnover. Therefore, based on all the information gathered and analysis carried out, would it be ideal to say that board diversity positively impacts firm performance?

The Grapes of Wrath - The True American Spirit Essay -- The Grapes of W

The True American Spirit of The Grapes of Wrath    John Steinbeck's novel, The Grapes of Wrath is an excellent portrayal of the common and true Americans. While it is of course a book of deep thought and incredible symbolism, most of all The Grapes of Wrath gives these common American workers a voice and a distinct identity, and doesn't just turn them into a stereotype or cliche.       Steinbeck's book could be regarded as one of the best books from America and perhaps the best on the subject of the Great Depression. It doesn't focus on the stock market crashing or from the upper class perspective at all; instead it shows the effects of it on the common man. And, like all great fictional stories set in historical events, it uses the situation just as the basic story structure and it's not until a certain point that the true theme is revealed. In this case the setting is during the Great Depression but (and I don't want to sound too hokey) the theme is of course about the struggle of life, the ever endearing human spirit, and the hope of better opportunities.       One of my reasons for my choosing The Grapes of Wrath (besides the obviousness of the characters being the heart of America) for my American Patriotic write-off is because even though the characters already live in America they begin to dream of a new land of opportunity and it takes them onto a journey to rediscover the country. Like the recent tragic American situation, the Great Depression is a milestone event in our history and was a period of time that tested our country's strength. We triumphed over that obstacle and it only made us stronger, which we are undoubtedly doing with our current situation.       Most of us know the ... ...works for the banks, comes with a bulldozer to tear down his old family friends home, right in front of their eyes. I know, it sounds depressing but hey there are some comedic moments and let's remember the story is about the Great Depression.       And so... The Grapes of Wrath is probably the best book written on the subject of the Great Depression of America. It was a depressing time full of fear for the future as it is now with the attacks. We will hopefully be able to look back on these days as another part of history that only kept us stronger, like we do with the Great Depression. But even in these harsh times there's no need to be scared all of the time, because you can look at the Joads and even while wallowing in the poorest and most depressing situations they were still able to have a good time dancing at the hoe-down. True American spirit.   

Differences in Gays and Lesbians Essay -- Health, Diseases, HIV/AIDS

Differences in Gays and Lesbians HIV/AIDS is one of the leading causes of death according to the World Health Organization in 2004. Imagine the numbers of infection and death have steadily been increasing over the years, it probably has moved up in ranking. HIV is commonly transmitted by bodily fluids, but it is more highly transmitted when men have sex with men. I will be discussing the different variables that come into effect when gay men and lesbians are transmitted with HIV and how to avoid it. Gay, Bi sexual , and other males that have sex with men are , â€Å"approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s,†(CDC, 2006). In the year of 2006 in the United States , males who have sex with other males where accounted as more than half of the new HIV infections , â€Å"53% ,† (CDC, 2006). Males who have sex with males are known has MSM , MSM with previous known history of injection drug use were an additional, â€Å"4% of new infections,† (CDC, 2006). Towards the end of 2006 , more than half of the 53% were MSM or MSM that used injection drugs, accounted for the population living with HIV in the United States. The beginning of the epidemic in the United States the MSM have been a consistent representative of the biggest percentage of people diagnosed with AIDS and those living with the diagnoses. They sti ll remain the a big part of HIV and are learning different ways in remaining HIV free. The study was able to break up what ethnicity of homosexuals are getting infected and what are the age groups, the age groups are broken into 13-29, then 30-39, and 40-49. First the Caucasians accounte... ...ailable, one can take out penis before ejaculation. Oral sex on the anus should also use a dental damn in order to avoid fluids. Sharing sex toys between lesbians and males can be very risky such as a dildo , it can contain vaginal fluids, semen, faeces or blood on them. Make sure to keep them clean and to clean they very well every time. Also rough sex can lead to bleeding or breaks or cut in the lining of vagina or anus is very risky due to bodily fluids coming out. Mutual masturbation can lead to contraction of HIV if there is a wound on the hand of person performing it. If the sexual partner is an acquaintance the hands and fingers should be examined. For males penis to anus penetration HIV can be avoided by latex condom, there is still risk of infection. Making sure there is lubricant and anus is soft before entering is a good way to avoid bleeding and tares.

French and Indian War Dbq

The French and Indian war, which lasted from 1754-1763, resulted in a victory for the British over the French, which led to the French leaving North America. It also resulted in negative political, economic and ideological differences between the British and the American colonies. Politically the colonies were not happy because they could not expand further west, economically they felt oppressed by the British with all the taxes being place on them, and ideologically because of the governing of the British without representation.Politically with the British, the American colonies were not pleased. After 1763 and the end of the French and Indian War, the colonies had more than doubled their land as shown in document A. However, due to the Proclamation of 1763 being issued, which stated the colonists couldn’t go past the Appalachian Mountains. If they did go past the line drawn by the British, they would not be protected un the British due to their unwillingness to pay for their protection.The British knew that the Native Americans would fight for their land and were very protective of it as shown in Document B, a speech delivered by Canassatego, a Chief in the Iroquois Confederacy, to the representatives of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania in 1742. Canassatego most likely gave this speech because he was the leader of a people who did not want their land to be taken over. These actions of the British cause the American colonist's change in political views.The economic relations between the British and American colonies also changed dramatically because Britain was in debt due to the French and Indian War. This lead to them taxing the colonists to raise revenue and cover the costs of the war which was caused by the colonists. In document F, the British Order in Council in 1763 states that it is necessary to tax the American colonies because otherwise they would not have the means (money) to cover the colonists costs.These taxes were carried out in many f orms including the Stamp, Sugar and Tea Acts, as well as others that forced colonies to pay taxes on everyday goods. Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to John Hughs (document G), from London to Pennsylvania on August 9, 1765, describing how he was trying to get the Stamp Act repealed. This letter was most likely written by Franklin because he was a colonist from Philadelphia, who was a participant in government and owned the Pennsylvania Gazette, which meant the act hit him at home.Document H, represents the economic oppression the colonists felt that they were receiving from the British with a newspaper masthead showing how the Stamp Act was affecting them with skull and crossbones in the place were a stamp should be. The things done by the British to try and raise revenue from the colonies to cover the French and Indian War were causing a change in the future Americans' economic rationales. Asides from changing the American colonists' view on their political and economic relationsh ip with Great Britain, the French and Indian War also changed their ideology.They believed that the British were governing them with virtual representation, or without actual representation and unfairly. One example of the change in ideology is from George Washington himself, in letter written by him in 1755, he talks about serving his â€Å"King and Country†, when later on he fights that same king and country. In document D, an entry from a Massachusetts soldier's diary in 1759, the soldier describes how unjustly he and other colonial soldiers are treated by officers even though they were born Englishmen, but says they are not treated like they are, showing the growing resentment of British authority.In document E, Reverend Thomas Barnard located in Massachusetts in 1763 talks about how great the victory of the French and Indian War and the British were and how the American colonists would be able to expand further west. This viewpoint was most likely changed after the Procl amation of 1763, as the colonists could not actually expand westward with British protection. Document H, the Newspaper masthead from October 1763, also represents the change in ideology of the American colonists.It talks about saying farewell to liberty, stating â€Å"Adieu Adieu to LIBERTY,† showing how the British were taking away their freedoms. The British actions that occurred during and after the French and Indian War played a major role in the changing of ideology of the British. The French and Indian War was a major cause of the American Revolution. One type of document that would help show how the war changed relations between the colonies and the British would be a letter from a Parliament member to a member of colonial government concerning relations between the mother country and its colony.The French and Indian War caused the colonists to change their political, economic and ideological relations with the British. Political relations were tarnished by the Procla mation of 1763, the economic relations were strained by the taxes placed on the colonies by the British to cover the French and Indian War costs, as well as those in the future. The ideological relations were diminished due to Britain's governing without representation on the American colonies.. The French and Indian war played a crucial part in the American Revolution. French and Indian War Dbq The French and Indian war, which lasted from 1754-1763, resulted in a victory for the British over the French, which led to the French leaving North America. It also resulted in negative political, economic and ideological differences between the British and the American colonies. Politically the colonies were not happy because they could not expand further west, economically they felt oppressed by the British with all the taxes being place on them, and ideologically because of the governing of the British without representation.Politically with the British, the American colonies were not pleased. After 1763 and the end of the French and Indian War, the colonies had more than doubled their land as shown in document A. However, due to the Proclamation of 1763 being issued, which stated the colonists couldn’t go past the Appalachian Mountains. If they did go past the line drawn by the British, they would not be protected un the British due to their unwillingness to pay for their protection.The British knew that the Native Americans would fight for their land and were very protective of it as shown in Document B, a speech delivered by Canassatego, a Chief in the Iroquois Confederacy, to the representatives of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania in 1742. Canassatego most likely gave this speech because he was the leader of a people who did not want their land to be taken over. These actions of the British cause the American colonist's change in political views.The economic relations between the British and American colonies also changed dramatically because Britain was in debt due to the French and Indian War. This lead to them taxing the colonists to raise revenue and cover the costs of the war which was caused by the colonists. In document F, the British Order in Council in 1763 states that it is necessary to tax the American colonies because otherwise they would not have the means (money) to cover the colonists costs.These taxes were carried out in many f orms including the Stamp, Sugar and Tea Acts, as well as others that forced colonies to pay taxes on everyday goods. Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to John Hughs (document G), from London to Pennsylvania on August 9, 1765, describing how he was trying to get the Stamp Act repealed. This letter was most likely written by Franklin because he was a colonist from Philadelphia, who was a participant in government and owned the Pennsylvania Gazette, which meant the act hit him at home.Document H, represents the economic oppression the colonists felt that they were receiving from the British with a newspaper masthead showing how the Stamp Act was affecting them with skull and crossbones in the place were a stamp should be. The things done by the British to try and raise revenue from the colonies to cover the French and Indian War were causing a change in the future Americans' economic rationales. Asides from changing the American colonists' view on their political and economic relationsh ip with Great Britain, the French and Indian War also changed their ideology.They believed that the British were governing them with virtual representation, or without actual representation and unfairly. One example of the change in ideology is from George Washington himself, in letter written by him in 1755, he talks about serving his â€Å"King and Country†, when later on he fights that same king and country. In document D, an entry from a Massachusetts soldier's diary in 1759, the soldier describes how unjustly he and other colonial soldiers are treated by officers even though they were born Englishmen, but says they are not treated like they are, showing the growing resentment of British authority.In document E, Reverend Thomas Barnard located in Massachusetts in 1763 talks about how great the victory of the French and Indian War and the British were and how the American colonists would be able to expand further west. This viewpoint was most likely changed after the Procl amation of 1763, as the colonists could not actually expand westward with British protection. Document H, the Newspaper masthead from October 1763, also represents the change in ideology of the American colonists.It talks about saying farewell to liberty, stating â€Å"Adieu Adieu to LIBERTY,† showing how the British were taking away their freedoms. The British actions that occurred during and after the French and Indian War played a major role in the changing of ideology of the British. The French and Indian War was a major cause of the American Revolution. One type of document that would help show how the war changed relations between the colonies and the British would be a letter from a Parliament member to a member of colonial government concerning relations between the mother country and its colony.The French and Indian War caused the colonists to change their political, economic and ideological relations with the British. Political relations were tarnished by the Procla mation of 1763, the economic relations were strained by the taxes placed on the colonies by the British to cover the French and Indian War costs, as well as those in the future. The ideological relations were diminished due to Britain's governing without representation on the American colonies.. The French and Indian war played a crucial part in the American Revolution.

‘Disraeli did infinitely more for the working classes than Gladstone.’ Do you agree?

Both men, who served as Prime Ministers, reformed many institutions with many of them effecting the working class like education (bringing up the working class), trade union (helping the working class fight for work wrights), public health (living conditions affecting the working class) and licensing (the way many working class people passed the time), along with the electoral institution (workers being able to vote on the matters which the work upon, such as factory conditions and education).Many historians, such as William Kuhn, argue that William Gladstone, the Liberal Prime Minister, passed many other reforms as well to help the working class, including the Ballot Act of 1872. However, some historians, such as Monypenny and Buckle, say that Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative Prime Minister, did more to help the working class, including passing the Second Great Reform Act of 1867. The issue of trade union reforms was heavily involved in both Prime Minister's term of offices, to w hich Disraeli seemed to do more for, even though Gladstone provided the building blocks for the reforms.Gladstone was the first PM to recognise the rights of trade unions to exist. His legislation of 1871, the Trade Union Act, gave the unions legal protection and the freedom to exist and collect subs. On first reading, then, it would seem that Gladstone truly understood the concerns of working men and collective security against unscrupulous employers. However, the Act did not allow Unions to go on strike, due to a clause which ‘failed to define intimidation clearly', which even a bad look could send someone to jail, which irritated the Radicals.It was a half-hearted measure that alarmed the Whig-conservative elements and frustrated the hopes of working men, as the interpretation was lost in courts. Many saw it as a pointless decision, and it took Disraeli in 1875 to allow unions the right to strike. Disraeli’s legislation differed from Gladstone’s in that he was much more practical in his social reforms. Gladstone’s reforms required cooperation from the working classes; it places demands on them to respond.Disraeli’s approach was to provide non-controversial legislation that was beneficial to all in society, including letting the Employers and Workmen Act have a clause that accepted that breaches of conduct such as pay and working hours by employers and workmen to be treated as offences under civil law, with even Alexander MacDonald, a trade unionist and a Liberal MP, saying that â€Å"the Conservatives have done more for the working classes in six years than the Liberals had in sixty.†This shows that in trade union reform, Disraeli did more for the working class due to effectively allowing peaceful picketing. Another issue that Disraeli and Gladstone both put reforms into was public health to which it seemed Gladstone did more to help the working class. Gladstone, in 1872, passed the Public Health Act, which establish ed the Urban & Rural Sanitary Authorities for public health in the local areas. This all came from a Commission in 1871 saying that the sanitary laws should be made uniform.Even though these were abolished in a Local Government Act in 1894, the 1872 Act led the way for Urban and Rural District Councils that still run to do run to this day. On Disraeli's attempt, he passed the Public Health Act of 1875, due to the actions of George Sclater-Booth, a Conservative MP for Health. The Act brought together all the previous legislation under a newly established system of power and checks for issues such as sewage/draining and public toilets.This was seen as a massive success due to the fact that there was no public health measures for the next 60 years after the passage of the act. However, with the fact that it he paved the way for local government control that still exists today to help the working class, Gladstone did more to help the working class than Disraeli did in the public health reform. The issue of licensing snuck into both Prime Ministers' time. In both cases, it didn't do any good for the ruling party.For Gladstone's, the 1872 Licensing Act gave JPs the right to grant licenses to publicans, to fix operating hours and check for the adulteration of the alcohol. Gladstone introduced the act due to the commonness of widespread drunkenness in 19th Century Britain. However, it didn't do any good for the Liberals, due to that moderateness of the act which disappointed two Liberal pressure groups of the party (mostly single issue MPs), who thought the act was ‘too lenient'. There is also historical view from Lowe that the Act affected â€Å"a positive permanent shift of the publicans and brewers of the Tory Party.†Lowe then observes that the Licensing Act was major cause of the Liberal defeat in 1874. The same reform ideas went into Disraeli's second term with the Intoxicating Liquoring Act, which again, curtailed opening hours and in the end, pleas ed nobody. Even though both attempts failed to sort out the problem of licensing, Gladstone lost a lot of working class support due to the licensing Act, as there were a number of near riots to enforce closing hours, and as Lowe writes, many brewers went to theTories after the 1872 Act, so Disraeli seemed not to harm the working class as much as Gladstone did to his own party and the working class. An issue the two honourable Prime Ministers shared in working on education, to which Disraeli seemed to do more for the working class. Gladstone's work on the Forster’s Education Act established the principle of universal elementary education. The state was taking on board the responsibility and the costs of educating all children up to a certain age.This had a link with meritocracy because Gladstone wanted the working classes to be aspiring: education would encourage workers to be more reflective and focus on moral and ethical progress, furthering one of Gladstone's aims. This was not necessarily appreciated by the working man and woman. Gladstone’s high-minded ideals were very far removed from the daily experiences of the ordinary family who were trying to scrape together a living. Ensuring that children had to receive schooling meant that there was less money coming into the family household.Disraeli’s Education Act 1876, clarified Forster’s Act, by placing a duty on parents to ensure that their children received elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic; created school attendance committees, which could compel attendance, for districts where there were no school boards; and the poor law guardians were given permission to help with the payment of school fees, giving a way of working class families a chance to get a child in education and made employment of children under 10 illegal, incentivising parents to send their kids off to school.This shows that in education neither Gladstone or Disraeli had any significant under standing of the plight of working class lives especially in a pre-welfare age. However, since Disraeli was able to further the work done by Gladstone, I believe that Disraeli managed to help the working class more, due to that managed to help the working class children get into school. One final comparison between the two figureheads of Gladstone and Disraeli that we can make is the reforms electorally.Gladstone passed the Ballot Act of 1872, which made voting in elections happen by secret ballot and that candidates shouldn't be nominated at the hustings. The Act enhanced the right of the voters to cast their votes without intimidation, which pleased many working class people, as they didn't have to vote to their landlord's wishes. Disraeli however, did pass the Second Great Reform Act, which extended the right to vote still further down the class ladder, adding  just short of a million voters, including many working men, and doubling the electorate to almost two million voters in England and Wales alone.Even though both prime ministers were successful in helping the working class secure their say in government, I believe that Gladstone did more to help the working class, with the upper class getting less voting power with their single ballot and that landlords couldn't compel their tenants to vote the way that they wanted to. There was a reason for the differences in why Gladstone and Disraeli did different things.Gladstone, from his strict religious beliefs, thought that by helping the working class, they would become more moral. In this case, Gladstone's reforms in Licensing were due to the immorality of the large problematic situation he found in drinking houses. As a committed Anglican Christian, he believed that the church, which was the official state religion of the UK at the time, had a important role of defending ‘God's' plan to help people and deter them from sin, and by helping the people, he would be seen as helping ‘God's' creation. Disraeli, on the other hand, perused reforms, which many were compromises on behalf of the elite. One of the main aims of Disraeli was to maintain the traditional aristocratic constitution of the country, and this was seen in many of his reforms, such as the education reforms, which was designed to uphold the ascendancy of squire and parson in rural England. The reforms weren't really meant to help the poor, they were there to help settle a possible class conflict of ideas and interests. There are many historical opinions about who did more to help the working class.There are some, such as Lee, who claim that there was no real worked out legislation programme, more of a typical 19th Century politician â€Å"paying off electoral debt†. For Gladstone, Matthew describes his pattern of reforming as the ‘reforms on the inefficient administrations of the UK,' showing that he reformed to keep government expenditure low and wanted to liberate people from outdated restrictions, like he did with trade union reforms, which were giving trade unions legal protection.In conclusion, I believe that with these categories, I agree that Disraeli did do more, but the word â€Å"infinitely† is too far for my understanding. Even though the reforms were to protect the interest of the aristocrats and gave more the working class, Gladstone gave the building blocks for many of the reforms, such as giving trade unions the legal protection that they wanted and setting the way for local councils with the public health reforms.