Monasticism Essays - Asceticism, Monasticism, Monk, Hermit

Monasticism Monasticism, literally being a hermit, has come to describe the way of life pertaining to people living in seclusion from the rest of the world. These people are under religious promise and subject to a fixed rule, as monks. The basic idea of monasticism is total isolation from the rest of society. The method they have adopted, no matter what the precise details may be, is usually organized asceticism. If the ways of monasticism were taken in a broad enough sense it may be found in every religious system that has attained a high degree of ethical development, such as Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions, and even in the system of the communistic societies at our present time. Throughout my learning in class, I have come to understand that the monastic way of life is an ascetic one, but I do not believe saying the earliest Christian asceticism was monastic is correct. Considering the circumstances in which the early Christians were placed, for the first century or so of the Church's existence the idea of living apart from the congregation of the faithful was out of the question, it was seen as nearly impossible. However, I find myself certain that monasticism, when it came, was little more than a group of ideas previously in solution among Christians. For asceticism is the struggle against worldly principles, even with such as are merely worldly without being sinful. The world desires and honors wealth, so the ascetic loves and honors poverty. If he must have something in the nature of property then he and his fellows shall hold it in common, just because the world respects and safeguards private ownership. In like manner he practices fasting and virginity that thereby he may repudiate the license of the world.

Media Globalisation and its Effects

Media Globalisation and its Effects Free Online Research Papers The globalisation of media has had a drastic effect on media systems globally and the production and dissemination of information and culture. The following paper will outline how the globalisation of media restructures relations between different media corporations/providers. It will further address the impact of media globalisation on culture through examination of the two central discourses surrounding the cultural impact of media globalisation; homogenisation and hybridisation. The media and communications sector is perhaps the sector where globalisation has had its most prolific impact. Globalisation of the media has facilitated a complete restructuring of media systems into a single global media system. Robert McChesney (1999, p.260) claims that where â€Å"previously commercial media systems were primarily national†¦ [Recently] a global commercial-media market has emerged.† Organisations such as the World Bank, World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary fund have helped to facilitate media globalisation through encouraging states to deregulate markets in order to attract foreign investment. According to McChesney (1997, p.1) â€Å"the global commercial system is a very recent development†¦until the 1980s media systems were generally national in scope†¦ [however] pressure from the IMF, World Bank and US Government to deregulate and privatize media systems coincided with new satellite and digital technologies resulting in the rise of transnational media giants.† This demonstrates the three factors which have, and continue to, enable media globalisation are the deregulation of media ownership laws, the privatisation of previously state owned media outlets, particularly in Asia, and the proliferation of new media technologies. A pertinent example of how deregulation and privatisation facilitate media globalisation was evidenced in China. Prior to 1999 China had been opposed to privatisation and deregulation of its media sector in order to allow foreign investment. However, in 1999 it was offered entry into the WTO on the condition that it â€Å"allow foreign investors to hold up to 49 percent of certain telecommunications companies, including internet firms† (Head 2001, p.414). The Chinese ‘communist’ government agreed this condition and deregulated its media sector. The decision by China illustrates the lure of being accepted as part of the global free-market, Lyons (2005) posits that â€Å"the admittance into the World Trade Organisation was a benefit that outweighed the past reluctance towards foreign investment.† This move toward deregulation of markets is a trend that has been evidenced increasingly throughout both the North and the South. The globalisation of media has resulted in the concentration of media ownership into a handful of transnational media corporations (TNMCs). This arose out of series ‘mega-mergers’ between several large media corporations until finally, according to McChesney (1999, p.260), â€Å"the global media market has come to dominated by the same eight TNCs that rule the US media: General Electric, ATT/Liberty Media, Disney, Time Warner, Sony, News Corporation, Viacom and Seagram.† The creation of this global media oligopoly has resulted in a vast restructuring of the power relations between media organisations. The concentration of media ownership has centralised power amongst media organisations into the hands of a small minority both within states and globally. Lee Artz (2003, p.8) claims that â€Å"globalization has redistributed resources within nations to the domestic elite and internationally to the TNCs.† Artz (2003, p.8) claims that â€Å"TNCs merge with loc al entities to circumvent regulations or disfavour† and that the national elites which constitute these entities â€Å"have adopted the mantra of deregulation, privatization and commercialisation.† Hence it becomes evident that the neoliberal economic policies that drive globalisation facilitate the reordering of power within the media sector both nationally and internationally. Although the global media system is largely dominated by the eight dominant TNMCs, behind these corporations there exists what McChesney (1997, p.2) refers to as â€Å"second tier† corporations, â€Å"these firms tend to have national and regional strongholds or to specialize in global niche markets.† Although these second tier corporations are usually national or regional, according to McChesney (1999, p.265), â€Å"they are hardly oppositional to the global system, this is true as well in developing countries.† In saying that, second tier corporations are not necessarily compatible with the TNMCs. Lyons (2005) posits that â€Å"there is fierce competition taking place between the first and second tier corporations† because the second tier corporations â€Å"dont want to loose market share to the larger multinational corporations.† In short, the second tier firms strive to become TNMCs by globalising while the first tier corporations attempt to consume the second tier firms into their empires. This process again has a restructuring impact on existing power relations amongst media enterprises. Whilst the second tier firms attempt to globalise, the balance of power still remains with the TNMCs and their virtually unassailable grip on the global media system. There are two processes by which TNMCs globalise; these are vertical and horizontal integration. Vertical integration refers to the process by which TNMCs gain ownership of both the intellectual property (media content) and the means of distribution. For instance McChesney (1999, p.260) cites the fact that nearly all Hollywood studios are owned by one of the major TNMCs which, in turn, also own the cable television channels which distribute their content. Horizontal integration describes the situation where TNMCs own a large portion of a specific media sector. An example of horizontal integration is News Corporation’s domination of the Australian newspaper industry, owning the most popular (tabloid) newspaper in every capital city and the only national broadsheet. Vertical integration affects the power relations between media enterprises significantly by diminishing competition. If the same parent corporation owns both the content and means of distribution of that content they possess the power to price any potential competitor out of the market. This suppression of competition in the global media system further centralizes power amongst media organisations towards the major TNMCs and away from other, smaller media organisations. Horizontal integration of media organisations has a detrimental effect on the diversity of content within certain sectors of the media system. That is, if the same TNMC controls several different media outlets within the same media sector it may deliver the same content through every outlet. Horizontal integration also has the effect of pushing smaller media outlets out of certain sectors as they do not possess the relevant resources to compete with the TNMCs, further perpetuating media ownership concentration and therefore further centralizing power within the global media system. Media globalisation also has also had a significant impact on the production and reproduction of culture. Two dominant discourses exist in relation to the impact of media globalisation on culture; these are homogenisation and hybridisation. In rudimentary terms, homogenisation refers to the dissemination of one particular culture globally through media flows and hybridisation refers to the idea that media globalisation is actually disseminating a range of new, hybrid, cultural concepts. Discourses espousing the homogenisation theory are critical of media globalisation and find their roots in political economy theory. Chris Barker (1999, p.37) posits that â€Å"one strand of the homogenization argument stresses the global reach of capitalist consumerism.† This theory proposes that the TNMCs that largely control the global media system as a result of globalisation disseminate a homogenous form of culture based on an ideology of capitalist consumerism. The negative view political economy theorists take toward this concept is â€Å"posed in terms of a loss of cultural autonomy and diversity in a process dubbed cultural imperialism† (Barker 1999, p.37). Artz (2003, p.17) claims that â€Å"capitalist hegemony needs parallel media hegemony as an institutionalized, systematic means of educating, persuading, and representing subordinate classes to particular practices within the context of capitalist norms†, indicating that the global media system is merely vehicle through which the capitalist ideology of the TNMCs is disseminated to ‘subordinate classes’. McChesney (1999, p.266) claims, similarly, that â€Å"the global media system is better understood as one that advances corporate and commercial interests and values and denigrates or ignores that which cannot be incorporated into its mission.† Another, similar, concept often espoused by those critical of media globalisation from a political economy perspective is that not only is the homogenous culture one of capitalist consumerism, but that it is also a specifically American or Western brand of culture. Barker (1999, p.38) asserts that â€Å"homogenization is regarded primarily as the spread of Western capitalism and culture.† This claim is problematic for two reasons; firstly, there is no single Western or American culture, hence how can global media flows disseminate a non-existent monoculture. Secondly, as Barker (1999, p.38) asserts, â€Å"it is the case that that the global flows of cultural discourses are any longer constituted as one-way traffic from the ‘west-to-the-rest’.† Furthermore, this argument presupposes that capitalism and consumerism are strictly Western concepts. There can be no doubt that the global media system is based on capitalist ideology as it requires the existence of a global free-market to operate. Similarly the global media system, by nature, disseminates consumerism as it is largely dependant on advertising, however to say that media globalisation has created a homogenising of global cultural flows toward a Western or American monoculture is problematic. Cultural studies theorists claim that the homogenisation discourse looks at media globalisation in too narrow terms. The cultural studies discourse surrounding media globalisations states that, the global media system does not disseminate a single homogenous culture but actually allows the hybridisation of cultural flows globally, Floya Anthias (2002, p.628) claims that hybridisation is a â€Å"process of redefinition’ which challenges the idea of the homogeneity of dominant cultures†. Anthias (2002, p.622) describes hybridisation as â€Å"the ways in which forms become separated from existing practices and recombine with new forms of new practices†, indicating that hybridisation is not merely the production of new types of culture from thin air but the merging of different cultural practices to create hybrid cultural forms. One of the arguments that cultural studies theorists cite in their claim that media globalisation has a hybridizing effect on cultural flows is that the creation of diaspora media flows. These diaspora media flows are examples of what Karim Haiderali Karim (p.51) calls â€Å"decentralized global narrowcasting.† These media flows are produced by migrants who create media flows for people of similar culture within their host country (and sometimes in other countries), usually in their native language, Karim (p.51) claims that these media flows are â€Å"neither homogenizing nor all-encompassing†. Such media flows are an example of hybridisation because â€Å"they are produced with varying relationships to both their homelands and their host land† (Karim, p.51). These diaspora media flows are an ever growing trend, particularly among minority ethnic groups in Western countries and clearly illustrate how globalisation can create hybrid cultures. Another argument espoused by cultural studies discourses surrounding the hybridisation of culture through media globalisation concerns the concept of ‘active audiences’. In opposition to the political economy discourse that the global media system disseminates a homogenous culture, cultural studies scholars claim that all audiences to which culture is exported will not interpret media content in a homogenous way nor will they necessarily accept it. Lyons (2005) claims that â€Å"the audience is now fragmented, know and addressable. This new audience is engaged and active in participation.† An example of the concept of ‘active audiences’ was evidenced in India. Australian media mogul James Packer gained part ownership of Star TV, a company that distributes satellite television in India. When Packer attempted to air American television programs on Star TV they were not accepted by the audience. In fact, â€Å"Star TV only succeeded after it hired an Indian television executive who created Indian soap operas† (Lyons 2003). This example demonstrates that even if homogenous media content is disseminated by the global media system it will not necessarily have a homogenous effect on culture as audiences are not a blank slate on which culture can be impressed but rather an active consumer group that will interpret, accept or reject content accordingly. The globalisation of media, primarily since the Second World War, has had an unprecedented impact on the structure of power relations within the media sector and the way in which culture is produced, reproduced and disseminated globally. The immense concentration of media ownership as a result of media globalisation through deregulation and privatisation of media markets and the proliferation of new media technologies has centralized power amongst media organisations. The concentration of media ownership has resulted in the creation of a global media oligopoly; this process has reordered power relations within the global media system almost exclusively toward this group. Due to the creation of this oligopoly the diversity of media content disseminated through global media flows has been diminished, with huge cultural implications. A dialectic has emerged whereby the global media flows have two, seemingly contradictory, effects on culture. While the global media system disseminates capitalist consumer culture globally and uniformly having a homogenizing effect, it simultaneously has the effect of creating new hybrid cultures as a result of global flows of people and the interpretation of media flows. However, neither homogenisation nor hybridisation attempt the preservation of traditional cultures, homogenisation attempts to suppress them whilst hybridisation may subvert by incorporating them into new hybrid cultures. It is the future of traditional cultures to which the proliferation of media globalisation poses the greatest threat and how such cultures can be preserved will be an important question for future theory on media globalisation. Reference List McChesney, R. 1999, ‘The New Global Media’, The Nation, USA, November 29 1999. McChesney, R. 1997, ‘The Global Media Giants’, Extra, USA, November 1997. Siochrà º, S. 2004, ‘Social consequences of the globalization of the media and communication sector: Some Strategic Consideration’, Policy Integration Department Word Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, Geneva. Ainger, K. 2001, ‘Empires of the Senseless’, New Internationalist, April 2001. Artz, L. Kamalipour, K. 2003 (ed.), The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony, State University of New York Press, New York. Barker, C. 1999, ‘Global Television Culture’, in Television, Globalization and Cultural Identities, Open University Press, Buckingham. Anthias, F. 2005, ‘New hybridities, old concepts: the limits of ‘culture’’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 619-638. Haiderali Karim, K. 2003, The Media of Diaspora, Routledge, New York. Lyons, J. 2005, ‘Media Globalization and its Effect upon International Communities: Seeking a Communication Theory Perspective’, Global Media Journal, Vol. 4, Iss. 7, June 2, 2007, Head, S. W., Spann, T., McGregor, M. A. 2001, Broadcasting in America, ed. 9, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Research Papers on Media Globalisation and its EffectsRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andAnalysis Of A Cosmetics AdvertisementEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenDefinition of Export QuotasMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductBionic Assembly System: A New Concept of SelfAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into AsiaPETSTEL analysis of IndiaTwilight of the UAWOpen Architechture a white paper

Amway Japan

Amway Japan Limited Executive Summary In 1996 Amway Japan Limited (AJL) was the leader in direct selling market, and the most successful company within the entire Amway group. In the first half of  1997, AJL experienced a net sales decline of 11. 6% and net income to 27. 6% from the first half of the previous year. The Japanese economy and declining value of  the Yen relative to the U. S. Dollar has decreased AJL’s sales volume and profit margin. The Japanese government recently passed laws that confused AJL’s distributors and discouraged potential consumers from buying certain product lines. Furthermore, AJL suffers from a negative public image with over 70% of their customer base having either a neutral or negative opinion of the company. In order to rebuild growth in the second half of 1997 and achieve AJL’s long-term sales goal of ? 300 billion by FY2000, the following strategies must be implemented. AJL must strengthen the overall Amway brand image in Japan by promoting high quality products with a competitively fair price. In addition, AJL needs to target their public-relations campaigns to specific groups by promoting individual products and product lines to build upon their brand equity. AJL will undertake a focused extensive distributor training program which emphasizes distributor ethics, techniques on building correspondent down-line relations, and a greater understanding of Japan’s door-to-door sales laws and regulations. AJL will improve  the internal marketing strategy by extending target-marketing initiatives toward specific demographic distributor groups to add upon their success with the Artistry cosmetic brands. AJL will successfully capture their momentum to reach their target revenue goals by implementing the solutions offered above.

Strategic Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 13

Strategic Management - Essay Example This essay presents a discussion about a strategy for competing against Apple Inc, a well-established and successful firm with an established brand and a capability for in-house VLSI design. Apple Inc, which first incorporated on January 3, 1997, is a company built on ability in electronic design and a capacity for taking an entrepreneurial risk at a time when the market suggested a future for personal computers and electronic gadgetry (Linzmayer, 2004, Pp. 1 – 10). Its founders Stephen Gary Wozniak and Steven Paul Jobs had an interest in electronic design and they were able to impress Armas Clifford, a retired software designer with connections and capital, who stepped in to help them with US$ 92,000 of his own funds and a secured credit line worth US$ 250,000 from Bank of America. The capital meant a lot to the backyard operation that Jobs and Wozniak had been operating to make electronic gadgets for some time. With continued success, Apple Computers went public in 1980 when Job’s initial 45 % stake translated into 7.5 million shares, worth US$ 82.35 million when Apple Stock was at an all time low in 1982 or US$ 2255.85 million in the year 2000 when the company stock record high. Within the relatively recent past, Apple Inc recorded net sales of US$ 32, 479 million in the year 2008, with a net income of US$ 4, 834 million (Apple Inc, 2009, â€Å"Annual Report for 2008†). This result is an improvement on the result for the year 2007, when Apple recorded net sales of US$ 24,006 million and earnings of US$ 3,496 million. However, despite the fact that Apple has enjoyed success, it is important for this computer company to remain vigilant in difficult economic times when competition amongst computer manufacturers is intense and efforts to exploit its weaknesses are possible. Thus, it makes sense to examine the present market environment for Apple and to reflect on a

Organisations and behaviour Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Organisations and behaviour - Assignment Example Organizational structure is said to have a considerable influence on the organizational learning and outcome which can affect the efficiency and productivity of the employees (Hao, Kasper and Muehlbacher, 2012). A hierarchy is depicted in the form of pyramid where the ranking or the position of the individuals or employees signifies authority and power. The individuals at the top most level are known as top level managers who are responsible for managerial decision making and commanding over their subordinates. The middle level managers are responsible for managing the lower level managers and to check whether the actions are being executed as per the plans or not. The lower level managers are responsible for following the instructions and executing the actions. Traditionally, the organizations followed a hierarchical structure which composed of various layers and was also know as top down approach (Harley, n.d). The organization possessed a bureaucratic culture which signifies that the employees followed the policies and regulations laid down by the management stringently and the managers of the organization exhibited autocratic leadership approach (San Jose State University, 2009). It can be observed from the case study that Hawk Car Company followed the traditional form of hierarchical structure which constituted of traditional policies and procedures, technology, lines of production and leadership approach. This led to the feeling of monotonousness among workers, which hampered the productivity of the workers. There was dissatisfaction among workers which led to high absenteeism and high turnover of staff. The functioning of the organization was not smooth and it witnessed difficulties in hiring of personnel. Scientific Taylor of management was introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the year 1911 in a monograph named the Principles of Scientific Management (TipLady, n.d). Taylorism is strongly associated with mass production in the manufacturing factorie s. F.W Taylor adopted a name for this approach popularly known as â€Å"Scientific Taylor of Management†. It was a task oriented approach which was meant for organizations that performed mass production especially in assembly line and fast food organizations. Taylorism approach also included other elements like taking several rest breaks within their tasks. Although many philosophers agreed that the rest breaks would lower the productivity of the organizations, F. W Taylor claimed that rest breaks would have broken the monotony of the workers and improved the existing process. It can be observed from the case study that the pace and the productivity of the work process improved considerably after the introduction of several changes in the organization (Besson, 2000). There was a change in the factory layout, mechanistic procedure and several other management procedures. The management generally followed the Taylorism approach which suggested equitable distribution of tasks am ong the workers and empowerment of employees. Empowerment of employees lays emphasis on the fact that employees should be equally responsible in managerial decision making. This concept evolved from the human relation movement in the year 1920. After the Taylorism approach was introduced by the management of Hawk Car Company the situation improvised in the organizatio

Modified food Essay Example for Free

Modified food Essay â€Å"Genetically Engineered foods, also known as GM and GMO’s is the manipulation of DNA by humans to change the essential makeup of plants and animals. The technology inserts genetic material from one species into another to give it a new quality, such as the ability to produce a pesticide, or to include genetic material from Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt); a natural bacterium found in soil. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. Scientists have been undergoing experimentation of this method for over forty years, in hopes of perfecting GM’s which they foresee will positively enhance the overall well being of humanity nutritionally and environmentally. Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 â€Å"Two techniques dominate the the GM farming industry: Some crops have been modified to be able to survive the weed- killer glyphosate, commonly sold under Monsanto’s Roundup brand. Roundup Ready crops purpose is objection is to decrease the need to till before planting, saving farmers time and money and reducing erosion and loss of soil moisture. Gylphosate is among the least toxic herbicides that can kill a broad spectrum of weeds, and thus is suppose to be safer for farmworkers and less environmentally damaging. The second technique is the introduction of genes from the soil bacterium Bacillis thurengiensis (Bt) produces a substance toxic to many pests but harmless to humans, wildlife and most beneficial insects, such as bees. While Bt has long been used by organic farmers, scientists have produced GM crops that manufacture their own Bt in the part of the plant susceptible to attack from pests- such as corn-plant roots prone to root- worm attack. †Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 What was once fairly quiet contention over the controversy of whether genetically engineered foods were safe or beneficial for human consumption and environmental preservation, has now spiraled into a social and political frenzy. People are now starting to demand for a food democracy. Currently, consistent negative findings of toxins, endangerment to human consumption, and environmental hazards have substantiated involving GMO’s; overturning the initial positive scientific and GM biotech producers projections. Government, FDA, GMO and GMO seed monopolizing company Monsanto have been accused of collaborating in order to keep GMO’s understudied, in consumer markets, and unlabeled. GM manufactures claim that GM’s are for the greater good of the world, stating that GM can end world hunger, stop climate change, reduce pesticide use, and increase crop yields. Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p If such a feat had been achieved, people would be rejoicing, but evidence has proven contrary. The main controversial arguments are; GM has not improved world hunger, GM has actually increased climate change, GM has doubled pesticide usage and now pest insects have developed an immunity to the pesticides, and GM has decreased crop yields. Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p GM is dangerous for human and animal consumption, and is an overall risk to our health and environment. â€Å"Lab animals forced to eat GM foods showed damage to virtually every system studied. They had stunted growth, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially pre- cancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, misshapen cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and ceil metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed brains and testicles, enlarged livers, pancreases and intestines, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar levels, increased death rates, higher offspring mortality and immune system dysfunction. † Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p â€Å"Two dozen farmers reported that the GM corn varieties caused thousand of pigs to become sterile. Some also reported sterility among cows and bulls. German farmers link cow deaths to one variety of GM corn, while Filipinos link another variety to death among water buffaloes, chickens and horses. When 71 Indian shepherds let their sheep grace on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within 5 to 7 days 25 percent had died. The 2006 death rate for the region is estimated at 10,000 sheep. Since then more deaths were identified and toxins were also found in Bt cotton fields, investigators concluded that evidence strongly suggests the sheep death was caused by toxins, most probably Bt- toxin. † Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p â€Å"Three French scientists analyzed the raw data from three 2009 Monsanto studies on rats and found that three GM corn varieties caused liver and kidney toxicity and other kinds of organ damage. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"Organic farmers fear that their non- GM crops could become contaminated by the spread of genetically modified traits by wind and insect cross-pollination. Once those traits are in the agricultural gene pool, there’s no way to remove it. This is pollination with a life of its own, it spreads forever. †Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35. â€Å"Another environmental concern is Roundup ends up in wetlands because of runoff and inadvertent spraying, and Roundup damages soil,† according to Rick Relyea, University of Pittsburgh assistant Professor. Two Purdue scientists, Professor Emeritus Don Huber and G. s. Johal, said in a paper published in 2009 that the widespread use of glyphosate can significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defenses to pathogens and disease, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients, rendering them unavailable for plant use. The pair warn that â€Å"ignoring potential non- target side effects may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering the soil infertile, crops nonproductive and plants less nutritious. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"In 1992, the first Bush Administration sped up the GM process hoping it would increase exports and US dominance of food markets. The opposite ensued and the US government spent up to 5-billion-taxpayer-dollars a year in subsidies to prop up prices on the GM crop that many countries at the time rejected to adopt. Following other countries refusal of GM, the US government went on to try and force other countries to accept GM, â€Å"resorting to World Trade Organization Lawsuits against the European Union, GM food aid for famine- stricken nations, even threats to withdraw funds for AIDS relief if GMO’s weren’t adopted by African nations. † Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p â€Å"Monsanto and a few chemi- biotech companies ultimately control GMO’s and GMO seed supply. Funding for university level research is often funded or controlled by the agrochemical companies. Biotech companies deny access to their patent-protected GM technology. † Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 â€Å"The FDA does not conduct independent testing for human or animal safety and relies strictly on the research conducted by the manufacturers of the products. While the main GMO producer, Monsanto, makes it impossible for independent scientists to study GM seeds. The biotech industry has convinced the FDA that GM crops are not substantially different from conventional varieties. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å" As the system now stands, biotech companies bring their own research to the government body overseeing their products. Multibillion- dollar company corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically- engineered crops, they have refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they’ve set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options,† wrote Doug Gurian- Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"If GMO’s fail, shareholders in Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and other companies will see their investments plummet. According to Yahoo! Finance, more than 80 percent of Monsanto’s stock is held by institutional holders such a Vanguard and funds such as Davis, Fidelity and T Rowe Price. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"FDA officials have openly criticized efforts to label GM crops and food. In 2002, when Oregon voters considered measure 27, with contributions totaling $1,480,000. Next was Dupont, with $634,000,† said Cameron Woodworth in Biotech Family Secrets, a report for the Council for Responsible Genetics. Biotech companies Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, BASF and Bayer Crop Science, plus Grocery Manufacturers of America ( a trade organization), PepsiCo, General Mills and Nesde USA contributed $900,000, wrote Woodworth. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"Labeling advocates, along with 40 other countries, including all of Europe, Japan, and China want any GM food to be labeled. † Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 â€Å"Biotech companies claim that if GM products were labeled it would deter consumer spending, for by labeling GMO’s consumers would deem such products defective. Other high-ranking government officials have lobbied against labeling, stating, â€Å"If you label something there’s an implication there’s something wrong with it,† said Jose Fernandez, the U. S. State Department’s assistant secretary for economic, energy and business affairs. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. In March 2013, President Obama signed a rider which temporarily â€Å"requires the Agriculture Department to approve the growing, harvesting and selling of such crops, even if the courts rule environmental studies are incomplete†. http://www. foxnews. com/politics/2013/03/30/obama-signs-bill-that-protects-makers-genetically-engineered-crops-from-federal/. Which â€Å"prohibits the Department of Agriculture from stopping production of any genetically engineered crop once it’s in the ground, even if there is evidence that it is harmful†. http://opinionator. blogs. nytimes. com/2013/04/02/why-do-g-m-o-s-need-protection/ â€Å"The use of GM crops has become widespread among U. S growers of commodities, or big crops sold on future exchanges. Eighty- eight percent of corn and 94 percent of cotton, came from GM strains in 2012. Because corn and soy are ubiquitous in processed food in the U. S. , from corn- syrup- sweetened Coca- Cola to crackers made with soybean oil, its likely that most Americans consume a product containing a genetically modified ingredient everyday. † Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 People should have the right and the choice to know exactly what they are ingesting and serving to their children and loved ones. â€Å"Just label it. †

Shakespeare In Love Essay -- Movie Film Movies Essays

Shakespeare In Love with Queen Elizabeth "Shakespeare In Love" dominated the Oscars in 1998 bringing home seven academy awards including best picture. At Consumnes River College, a film professor argued to his class that "Saving Private Ryan" should have won the award. The whole class, which I attended, obediently agreed. Only after studying Renaissance literature, I realize our mistake. "Shakespeare In Love" accurately portrays Renaissance England and the birth of English drama, which is the ancestor of American motion picture. Its combination of screenplay and acting accurately portrays the important figures surrounding young Elizabethan drama. However, despite representations of Will Shakespeare, Kit Marlowe, and Ned Allen, perhaps the most dazzling representation is of Queen Elizabeth. Even though the Queen’s character does not consume a leading role, England’s greatest monarch resonates throughout the film. One aspect of the film that proves this and pays homage to Queen Elizabeth is its fictionalized her oine, whose life coincides with that of England’s heroic Queen. Much of the audience may assume that Gwyneth Paltrow’s star character, Viola, merely symbolizes William Shakespeare’s "Juliet." However, the film’s original screenplay clearly establishes a link between Elizabeth’s character and Viola’s. First of all, both possess keen wit uncommon to woman of the era, which they use to belittle the male sex. When an aristocratic male attempts to court Viola and says that he has spoken to her father, she replies, "So my Lord, I speak with him everyday." (Shakespeare) This comical scene alludes to Viola’s quick wit and confidence, which symbolizes those attributes of the Queen. When Viola argues with the queen that playwrigh... ... The film inevitably becomes more interesting as the parallels between Viola and the Queen are drawn. Viola’s character represents the Queen’s courage, wit, and tragic love and other qualities. Furthermore, the fact that the Queen institutes poetry and art into her court illustrates her courage to rebel against the classic philosopher Plato who said, "Hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into [the ideal] state." (Plato 13) Because Queen Elizabeth believes in the power of art and since it flourished to America, it is fitting that modern art should honor her. This one aspect of "Shakespeare In Love" that honors England’s greatest monarch is a fabulous stroke of creativity. However, it is just one reason why the film deserves "best picture," for it contains other essential keys that also unlock Renaissance England.