High School and Republic High Books Essay Example for Free

High School and Republic High Books Essay Ms. P Andy Lau Argumentative Essay Censorship is the government is control the media, censorship can used to control or protect people. Some groups feel that books with objectionable material should be censored for many different reasons,such as sexual content,against a religion ,bad language,racism violence. I believe that books shouldn’t be censored because we have the right to read it,and it depends on your own personality. Therefore I intend to prove that the banning of books in schools is completely unjustified. In Fahrenheit 451,There is a old women in the story,she is willing to die to not leave her books. It shows that books are so important to us, and our society that she was willing to die rather than give them up,also the character Guy Montag is curious to read those books,she quitted his job for those books. In the article â€Å"You have insulted me â€Å" by kurt Vonnegut. He is angry because his books got burned by the school board. †That’s because people speak coarsely in real life†this shows people speak bad word in real life,so why can’t books have bad words. Both the article supports my opinion that book shouldn’t be banged from high school. †Two books pulled form Republic school library shelves†this article is two of the three Republic High books singled out in a public complaint last year will now removed from the school curriculum and library. Those three books are â€Å"Speak†by Laurie Halse Anderson. Kurt Vonnegut’s†Slaughterhouse Five†and Sarh Ockler’s â€Å"Twenty Boy Summer†. And they didn’t banned â€Å"Speak†because it didn’t describe sex so much,and it has a good message. Also they just banned those books in classroom,students can still read it in library and independence reading . The second article is talking about parents and school districts have debated what books are appropriate for a school library collection and what books should be banned. ACLU didn’t ban books because they say its against the First Amendment . also they said†You clearly can’t remove a book because you disagree with the ideas in them†,this shows books shouldn’t get banned . We have to see different face of books ,bad way and good way. I believe that books should not be censored because books can send us good messages and our imaginary . It also depends on your own personality,if we have a evil mind ,we could only see the evil thing in the books,if we are normal human,we suppose to able to learn something form books,so I am sure that banning of books in schools is completely unjustified.

Wilhelm II: Policy Making in 1914 Berlin

Wilhelm II: Policy Making in 1914 Berlin Q. Who was in charge of policy in Berlin in 1914 and why did they act as they  did? ‘A vigorous transition to an imperialist policy will give Germany the space  it needs . . . An unsuccessful war can no more than set Germany back,  although for a long time; England it can destroy. As victor England will be  rid of an awkward competitor; Germany will become what England is  now, the world power.’ (Das Neue Deutschland) ‘The perpetual emphasis on peace at every opportunity — suitable and  unsuitable — has, in the last 43 years of peace, produced an altogether  eunuch-like attitude amongst the statesmen and diplomats of Europe’ (Wilhelm II) Historians of the Great War divide into two main camps when debating who were the principal policy-makers and men-in-charge of Germany at the outbreak of war in the summer of 1914. The first school, led historians such as Fritz Fischer, argues that Germany’s Kaiser, Wilhelm II, Germany’s Imperial Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, and Germany’s Chief of the General Staff, Helmuth Moltke, colluded to deliberately and consciously begin full-scale and non-localized war. This school states that Germany’s imperialist ambitions — as exemplified in the quotations above — growing as they did out of national pride and exuberance of her unification in 1871, had given Germany an insatiable appetite to copy and surpass the political hegemony enjoyed then by England. The second school, led by mostly defunct and sentimental German national historians like Kessler, rejects the suggestion of a ‘premeditated European war’ and posits a state of affairs where, under extreme international pressure, Germany’s politicians had to, as a last resort, cede authority to the military so that they could defend Germany from hostile neighbours. This essay will argue that the great bulk of past and historical evidence  ­Ã¢â‚¬â€ Wilhelm’s and others personal diaries, military documents, parliamentary papers and so on — reveal that the first school has it right when they say that policy was made in collusion between Wilhelm II, Bethmann and Moltke’s army. These policy-makers acted as they did because they feared that their opportunity for imperialist expansion was about to close, and with it Germany’s long-sought-for hopes of world-power. The Imperial Chancellor and Moltke manipulated the Reichstag and Kaiser Wilhelm II so as to engender the deliberate inevitability of war.. According to Hewitson[1], two potentially decisive policy-makers — the German public: particularly the newly-formed industrialized and urbanized classes; and German political parties — were sidelined from major policy decisions near the start of the war. The unification of Germany under Bismarck in 1871 had, like in Italy, summoned up an awesome spirit of nationalism amongst Germans, and this nationalist pride flowed out into ambitions for Germany to have an empire to rival those of England and France. In the same period, German society underwent a tremendous social and political transformation, with power moving from the old Junker and agricultural classes to Germany’s huge new urbanized masses. This shift from agriculture to industry meant that the urbanized Germans now had a potentially decisive voice in national affairs and policy decisions. In 1914 it was not explicit however that Germany’s industrialized citizens would have unanimously backed the typ e of war that was declared by its leaders that summer. Bethmann speciously claimed, after the war, that ‘. . . the war did not arise out of single diplomatic actions, but was rather a result of public passion’. In reality, whilst the German public knew the general background to the international situation, they knew nearly nothing whatsoever about the particular decisions and policies that were being made by their leaders in the critical weeks in July 1914. Of course, not knowing of the seriousness of events in Serbia and Austria, the German public were not able to use their considerable power to have any effect upon the policy-decisions behind those events. Hewitson[2] argues that Bethmann, Zimmermann, Jagow, the Kaiser and Moltke deliberately kept the German people in the dark because they feared that the people might raise opposition to an aggressive and non-localized conflict. Thus, Clemens von Delbruck, Secretary of State for the Interior in 1914, could state that ‘. . . we (the Chancellor’s division) have not spoken about foreign policy at all, the daily press was completely calm, and no one amongst the visitors present suspected the slightest thing about the imminent danger of war’. Journalists and the public they reported for were subjected to a lengthy and elaborate efforts from the Kaiser and his military to conceal Germany’s true intentions until such a point that when did become known to the public, it would like Germany was a victim and only fighting a ‘defensive’ and ‘localized’ war. The Chief of Wilhelm’s Naval Cabinet thus stated in July 1914 that ‘The gove rnment has managed brilliantly to make us (Germany) look like the attacked’[3][4]. A similar blanket was thrown over the eyes of Germany’s politicians and political parties. Immediately after Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination in Sarajevo, most of Germany’s politicians were away from Berlin on their annual holidays; this simple fact meant that their influence over policy, and any opposition they might have normally raised to the aggression of Wilhelm and Moltke, was largely neutralized by their absence. By the time politicians returned to Berlin, the decision to go to war had been made and they had no retrospective power to reverse this policy. Likewise, German politicians were culpable for a major underestimation of the seriousness of events after the Sarajevo bombing. Politicians and liberal newspapers such as the Vossiche Zeitung and the Frankfurter Zeitung said in the immediate aftermath of the assassination that the ‘Serbian government had no part in the crime’; even right-wing newspapers such as the Berliner Neueste Nachricht en neither anticipated nor called for retaliation against Serbia for the assassination. This attitude can be praised for seeking to pacify Germany and to avoid war; it can likewise be criticized for a certain naivety, underestimating the true intentions of the German military. These two groups then — the German public and the German politicians — can be said to have had a very limited effect upon the policy decisions taken in July 1914. If not these, who then were the principal policy-makers in charge in 1914? Kaiser Wilhelm II ostensibly, and perhaps in reality, was a central figure in such decisions. Wilhelm was the supreme figure in German life: he was Commander-in-Chief of the German army, and was empowered by Articles 11 and 18 of the German constitution to declare war. The allies recognised Wilhelm’s centrality in controlling policy in 1914 when at the Treaty of Versailles they named him as a ‘war criminal’ with direct responsibility for Germany’s deliberate attempt to begin the war. This picture of Wilhelm’s central involvement, and his desire for war, is supported by documentary evidence from the weeks and months immediately preceding the war. Writing of Friedrich von Pourtales, German ambassador to Russia, Wilhelm said that ‘†¦ he would do better to leave unwritten’ his thoughts about Russia’s lack of desire for war. Later, also of Pourtales, that à ¢â‚¬ËœHe makes those who are ignorant of Russia and weak, suspect characters amongst his readers, totally confused’[5]. Numerous other ambassadorial documents and diaries reveal that, within the German and international diplomatic community, Wilhelm’s opinions were believed to directly shape and determine the direction of German foreign policy[6]. Given the tone and content of the quotations cited above, it is clear that, if Wilhelm did indeed have as much power as his diplomats believed, that he used this to engender war deliberately and on a grand scale rather ‘in defence’ or in a ‘localized context’. Nonetheless, numerous historians, Kennedy and Herwig for instance, argue that diplomatic assessments of Wilhelm’s powers were blinkered, and that in truth he had profoundly little influence over policy in 1914. Kennedy[7] describes how Wilhelm’s power and influence over policy, at its acme around 1900, began to wane due to scandal and incompetence in the years preceding 1914. The disastrous Daily Telegraph foreign policy decisions, as well as the Eulenberg court scandal, had led to plummet of his authority amongst both the German public and its ruling elites; in Kennedy’s phrase he lacked a ‘personal regime’ that would have provided more decisive influence over policy. Wilhelm II confounded his loss of authority by dragging behind him an entourage of incompetent ambassadorial and diplomatic staff such as Pourtales, Wilhelm von Schoen and Karl Max von Lichnowsky. The Imperial Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, had often opposed Wilhelm’s decisions i n the years before the war, and at the moment of the Serbian crisis reports show that Bethmann’s power clearly exceeded that possessed by Wilhelm. For instance, on July 5th 1914, Alexander von Hykos, appealed to Germany for aid in the Serbian crisis; Wilhelm II at once promised Ladislaus Szogyeny-Marich, Austria’s ambassador to Berlin German’s total support, but conditioned this promise with the following words ‘. . . that he (Wilhelm) must first hear what the Imperial Chancellor had to say’. Wilhelm II, conscious of previous challenges to his authority by Bethman, did not want to risk humiliation by promising Szogyeny-Marich Germany’s undoubted support, when he had first to inquire from Bethmann whether indeed the government would endorse such a policy. Further, during the crucial days of policy-making after Ferdinand’s assassination, the Imperial Chancellor deliberately kept Wilhelm II on holiday in Norway, and away from Berlin, for as long as possible. Central military policy-makers such as Tirpitz, Falkenhayn, Moltke and Waldersee returned from their holidays on July 24th; Wilhelm II did not return until the 27th — just one day before the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia became effective. Further, the Serbian government had sent a reply to Austria’s ultimatum on July 25th, yet the Chancellor was not permitted to see this reply until after Austria’s declaration of war. On August 1st the Kaiser, now avowing peace, sought to prevent war by halting German military mobilization in the West, thus enabling Britain and France to make declarations of their neutrality. Nonetheless, his interventions were opposed and by both Bethmann Hollweg and Moltke, and these oppositions proved decisive. All in all, such subservience and acquiescence to the Imperial Chancellor and to Moltke shows the fallacy of the power of the official titles held by Wilhelm II: he was Commander-in-Chief only in name, and the decision behind any declaration of war would be made principally by Bethmann Hollweg and by Moltke. As Stevenson has put it: ‘On each policy-making occasion before the war, and whether counselling war or peace, the Kaiser’s demands were overridden’[8]. Initially, the Kaiser gave his total support in the policy of deliberately beginning war, for he, like most Germans, sought to increase Germany’s international prestige. And during this time, it was advantageous for Bethmann and Moltke to let the Kaiser and his entourage believe that he still retained significant power over foreign policy; but the emptiness of that authority quickly becomes evident during the last week of July, when Wilhelm II turns to oppose war, but is thwarted in his attempts by the more powerful Bethmann and Moltke[9]. The last section of this essay implied that the true policy-makers in Berlin in 1914 were Moltke and Bethmann Hollweg and that their intentions were , from the start of the Serbian crisis, and indeed from much earlier, to pursue a deliberate policy of ‘expansive’ war and to replace England’s world political hegemony with its own. This section turns to examine these claims in depth, and to supply evidence for them. Principally, that the German General Staff and War Ministry, frustrated with the failure of imperialist strategy in recent years, and sensing the opportunity for an imperialist advance rapidly failing, that the military deliberately provoked the international community into the inevitability of war. In the days immediately preceding the Austrian declaration of war, and in stark contrast to the nescience of the German public, leading German military figures knew intimately the state of affairs in Austria and Serbia and were controlling both the flow of information about the crisis and the decisions that were to be made based upon it. Many German military figures were, like German politicians, absent on holiday when the Serbian assassination too place; yet unlike the politicians, Germany’s generals returned quickly to Berlin to seize the opportunity to effect their long-term war strategy. For instance, although later denying the accusation, Waldersee was shown, in recently uncovered parliamentary papers, to have returned three times from holiday back to Berlin during the period July 20th—27th. During these visits he was in intimate contact with Austrian military commanders, and was actively gathering extensive military intelligence about the readiness and preparation of the Austrians to go to war. Moltke, likewise, penned to his wife on July 22nd that ‘I am sorry not to be able to stay here (Karlsbad) another week, but I have to return to Berlin’ and ‘Tomorrow, the 23rd is the critical day! I am eager to find out what will happen’[10]. Comments like these imply a War Ministry highly cognizant of the events about them and of the influence that they might have in directing these events. Thus, historians like Mombauer[11], argue that the German military deliberately escalated the already precarious international situation by effecting a ‘military takeover’ in Germany. For instance, on July 29th, Moltke gave Bethmann a document called ‘Summary of the Political Situation’; yet within three days mobilization of the German army had already begun. ‘The spiritual progress of mankind is only possible through Germany. This  is why Germany will not lose this war; it is the only nation that can, at the  present moment, take charge of leading mankind towards a higher destiny’ (Helmuth von Moltke, November 1914)[12] Helmuth von Moltke, Germany’s Chief of the General Staff, and supreme military leader for most of WWI, had great influence the policy-decisions made in the days immediately preceding war. As the above quotation suggests, and as innumerable other bellicose statements of Moltke corroborate, the German military were inspired to war by the patriotic and nationalistic idea that Germany should have international hegemony over the cultural and spiritual life of man. It is consequently very difficult to believe that Moltke, and other similarly minded military leaders, were content to wait patiently for the realization of these ambitions whilst the opportunity to enact them seemed to be dwindling. Instead, the generals knew that success depended upon an aggressive and vigorous provocation of international tensions so as to ignite war. Moltke was instrumental in effecting this provocation and his slogan that war should come ‘the sooner the better’ has lingered in history as a testament to his bellicose intent. Moltke influence over the Sclieffen/Moltke Plan was enormous, and this plan was perhaps the most explicit declaration of aggressive intent seen before the war — deliberately seeking as it did to violate the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg so as to provoke a chain-reaction whereby England and France would be drawn into the war also. Mombauer argues that Moltke and his generals had decided long before the war that a successful campaign would have first to swiftly defeat France and the West swiftly, before turning to combat Russia. This plan depended upon strict adherence to a tight military strategy, and therefore the subjugation, of ‘secondary’ political concerns — such as the preservation of peace! Complicit in these preparations for war was the Imperial Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg. Though he protested somewhat at the celerity with which the military preparations gathered momentum  ­Ã¢â‚¬â€ Hewitson[13] records an argument (Ausienandersetzung) between Molke and Bethmann on July 30th — Bethmann nonetheless was cognizant of the preparations that his military men were making, and of the fact that these preparations were neither for a defensive nor a localized war. To this end, Bethmann told his ambassadors, on the eve of the war, that ‘. . . we have accepted the role of mediator’ — confirming his acquiescence to the generals’ will. Stevenson argues that Bethmann’s outward protests against war, such as his last minute demand for a ‘halt in Belgrade’, were never pursued vigorously enough or believed either by Bethmann himself or by the military. An entry from General Falkenhayn’s diary, dated July 30th, states that, af ter talks with Bethmann, Falkenhayn had ‘. . . got the decision accepted over the imminent danger of war’[14]. In other words, Bethmann either willingly consented or meekly acquiesced to the preparations for war as readied by Moltke. Wilson argues further that, rather than having a ‘military take-over’ forced upon his government, and thereby being unwillingly dragged into conflict, Bethmann in fact, on the evening of July 30th, still had the chance to pressure Austria to restrict its military mobilization and therefore to slow-down Russia’s also. Bethmann made no such appeal, and therefore, Wilson argues, endorsed the military’s aggressive planning. In the final analysis, the two principal policy-makers in Berlin in 1914 were Molke and Bethmann — though considerably aided by the Kaiser, even if he was not always fully conscious of his contribution to these decisions. The impossibility of maintaining the old argument that German policy-makers only entered WWI in self-defence, and then that they only intended a localized war, ought to be evident to any modern and objective historian. Since Fischer’s seminal War of Illusions was published in the 1967, historians of all countries, aided by the discovery of a vast amount of documentation from the period, have begun to ask not whether Germany sought war deliberately, but why she did so. Principally, Germany sought war because, since the efflorescence of national pride engendered by unification in 1871, Germany possessed a craving to follow the imperialist expansion of countries like England and France — a longing immortalized in the German caricature of Sleepy Mic hael, who has ‘woken up too late’ to claim his part of the international map. In 1914 Moltke and his military advisors thought they saw a moment to realize these ambitions. The European political and military conditions of 1914, aided by the catalyst of Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination, seemed to open a window for a ‘now or never’ lightning military thrust. The usual checks such as the Reichstag and public opinion that might have prevented or at least localized the war, were bypassed by the rapidity of events in the last week of July 1914, and by the lack of information that was made available to these groups. A historian’s final reflection on the question of policy might then be this: that Germany’s irrepressible jealousy of Britain, born out of convictions of her own cultural and spiritual supremacy, led her policy-makers to deliberately engineer the inevitability of war. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brose, E.D. (2001). The Kaiser’s Army: The Politics of Military Technology During the Machine Age. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Carroll, E.M. (1938). Germany and the Great Powers, 1860-1914. New York, Fantasy Press. Coetzee, M.S. (1990). The German Army League: Popular Nationalism in Wilhelmine Germany. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cole, T.F. (1991). German Decision-Making on the Eve of the First-World War. Kaisermunch Press, Munich, Ferro, M. (1995). The Great War: 1914-1918. London. Fischer, F. (1967). War of Illusions: German Policies From 1911 to 1914. Catto   Windus Ltd, London. Gerghahn, V.R. (1993). Germany and the Approach of War. Herwig, H. (1991). The Outbreak of World War I: Causes and Responsibilities. (5th Ed.) Lexington, Massachusetts. Kennedy, P.M. (Edit.) (1979). The War Plans of the Great Powers: 1880-1914. New Haven, London. Kessel, E. (1957). Moltke. Stuttgart.   Mombauer, A. (2001). Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World  War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. O’Connell, R.L. (1989). Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Quirk, R (Et. Al.). (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stevenson, D. (1988). The First World War and International Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wilson, K. M. (1995). Decisions for War: 1914. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1 Footnotes [1] Hewitson, M. (2002). Germany and the Causes of the First World War. Berg, Oxford, p. 195. [2] Hewitson, M. (2002). Germany and the Causes of the First World War. Berg, Oxford, p. 198. [3] Herwig, H. (1991). The Outbreak of World War I: Causes and Responsibilities. (5th Ed.) Lexington,  Massachusetts, p55. [4] [5] Carroll, E.M. (1938). Germany and the Great Powers, 1860-1914. New York, Fantasy Press, p190. [6] Stevenson, D. (1988). The First World War and International Politics. Oxford University Press,  Oxford. [7] Kennedy, P.M. (Edit.) (1979). The War Plans of the Great Powers: 1880-1914. New Haven, London. [8] Stevenson, D. (1988). The First World War and International Politics. Oxford University Press,  Oxford, p200. [9] Stevenson, D. (1988). The First World War and International Politics. Oxford University Press,  Oxford, p251. [10] Hewitson, M. (2002). Germany and the Causes of the First World War. Berg, Oxford, p. 210. [11] Mombauer, A. (2001). Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War. Cambridge  University Press, Cambridge, p433. [12] Mombauer, A. (2001). Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War. Cambridge  University Press, Cambridge, p283. [13] Hewitson, M. (2002). Germany and the Causes of the First World War. Berg, Oxford, p202. [14] Wilson, K. M. (1995). Decisions for War: 1914. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Violence and Oppression in Wrights Black Boy :: Wright Black Boy Essays

Violence and Oppression in Wright's Black Boy "You are dead to me dead to christ!" In the following paragraphs, violence and oppression in Ch. 5 will discussed and analyzed through examination of Richard Wright's --author of Black Boy(1945)--use of diction, tone, and metaphors. Were people of his time to read this book it's probable that they would understand, wheather they agree with the author's point of view or not, the amount of violence and oppression witnessed by a boy his age. Richard Wright, through the the use of the words his senses produced, brought his past into light for the children of the future. He allows his readers to feel as he did under the light of strong persecution with the use of an intimidating, heartfelt tone. "The cosmic images of dread were gone and the external world became a reality, quivering daily before me. Instead of brooding and trying foolishly to pray, I could run and toam, mingle with the boys and girls, feel at home with people, share a little of life in common with others, satisfy my hunger to be and live." Wright fills the chapter with a calm and mesmorizing tone; like that of a preecher drawing his audience into a hymm. Omisdt violence, under anger and fear, Wright converses with the reader as though he were a youth leader telling a story to a group of boyscouts outside by a campfire. His spellbounding words chant the reader into his world and produce a map through which the reader follows his life in the shadows of others. " I mingled with the boys, hoping to pass unnoticed , but knowing that sooner or later I would be spotted for a newcomer. And trouble came quickly- a bloabk boy came bounding past me, thumping my hat to the ground and yelling." To keep his audience from dazily drifting into a state of semi-consiousness, Wright interjects into his prayer with action in an excited and staggering tone. "A blow landed on the back of my head. I turned and saw a brick rolling away and I felt blood oozing down my back. I looked around and saw several brickbats scattered about.

Free Essays - Escape from Reality in A Farewell to Arms :: Farewell Arms Essays

Escape from Reality in A Farewell to Arms In Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms, Fredric Henry gets involved with Catherine Barkley to escape the insanity of war. Frederic loves Catherine. Catherine loves Frederic. The extreme situation of war and fate allowed both of them to be thrown together and fall in love. This love for one another was an escape into another world for Frederic. It provided him emotionally with a private place, where he could go to separate and evade the horrible realities of war occurring in and around him. Under any other normal circumstances this love probably would have never happened, but the pitcher had the curve ball in for Frederic from the first throw. He wanted him out. From the beginning, Frederic and Catherine's relationship started in a strange state. Frederic knew Catherine was a little cooky, but he still continued to pursue her. He did not even love her at first, but he still needed a way of escaping his present situation, so he decided what the hell, and went after her. Plus, he really didn't think he had anything to loose. There were no stakes named from the start. He didn't really care if he lost anyway. "I did not love Catherine Barkley nor had any idea of loving her. This was a game, like bridge, in which you said things instead of playing cards. Like bridge you had to pretend you were playing for money or playing for some stakes. Nobody had mentioned what the stakes were. It was all right with me. (Hemingway, 30-31) But this is where Frederic made his mistake. He kept his distance from right and wrong regarding war and love. He had separated himself from war and seemed to have no place in it at all, mentally or physically (for example when he is in the hospital in Book Two). But when Aymo is killed by his own army, Frederic discovers the reality that he is not really separated from this event at all. He is very much part of this war whether he likes it or not. At this point, he seems to go a little crazy himself and gets scared. He needs a way to escape immediately and ends up separating himself again through love. Frederic had not been prepared for the stress and pressure of the reality he had faultily deluded himself from.

The Potential of Africas Global Economic Integration Essay -- Interna

Africa has long been thought of as a place where trade could not happen, especially on an international level. In recent times however, there has been a push to create more integration among African nations. These nations have realized the benefits which occur when firms are freely able to engage in investment from country to country moving away from the old protectionist policies of earlier years. As the textbook Global Business explains, these policies have, on numerous occasions before, triggered â€Å"retaliation that further restricted trade† (Peng, 2009). Governments there have also tried their hardest to change the image in the media of the continent and send signals to the public saying that they are indeed open to trade. To do so, they have used a series of tactics to push towards a more business-friendly continent. Many have shifted to being democratically elected governments focusing on the country and not just the ruling family. In addition, new laws have been impl emented to combat corruption in an attempt to gain more integration. Many of their efforts have been successful and these efforts have made it attractive to do business there. With countries like Ghana experiencing economic expansion of a record 13.6% in 2011 and an overall growth rate of 6% for countries in the continent in 2012 (The Economist, 2011), well above that of any rivaling Asian country, it is paramount that regional and global integration occur and other regions and international nations take advantage of opportunities available. Some companies and countries have recognized the huge potential for trade and investment in Africa and are starting to get involved; for example China, who are choosing to accept the risk in exchange for profits, are becoming ... ...ne, 08 Aug. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Peng, Mike W. Global Business. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. 221. Print. Rothmyer, Karen. "They Wanted Journalists to Say ‘Wow’." President and fellows of Harvard College (2011): Discussion Paper Series D-61. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. Shen, Li. "What Makes China's Investment Successful In Africa: The Entrepreneurial Spirit And Behavior Of Chinese Enterprises In Transitional Times." Journal Of Developmental Entrepreneurship 17.4 (2012): -1. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Yeh, Stuart S. "Ending Corruption In Africa Through United Nations Inspections." International Affairs 87.3 (2011): 629-650. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Vogt, Heidi. "Ethiopian Airlines Pilot Acted Strangely Before Hijacking, Family Says." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

Supply Increases Price

Homework Week 23. What effect will each of the following have on the demand for small automobiles such as the Mini Cooper and Smart car?a. Small automobiles become more fashionable This will increase the demand in small automobilesb. The price of large automobiles rises (with the price of small autos remaining the same) The demand will increasec. Income declines and small autos are an inferior good. The demand will increased. Consumers anticipate that the price of small autos will greatly come down in the near future. The demand will decreasee. The price of gasoline substantially drops This statement is unclear. You can’t really tell if the demand for small automobiles will increase or decrease just because the gas prices drop substantially.6. What effect will each of the following have on the supply of auto tires?a. A technological advance in the methods of producing tires. Supply will increaseb. A decline in the number of firms in the tire industry. Supply will decreasec. An increase in the price of rubber used in the production of tires. Supply will decreased. The expectation that the equilibrium price of auto tires will be lower in the future than currently. Supply will increasee. A decline in the price of large tires used for semi-trucks and earth hauling rigs (with no change in the price of auto tires). Supply will increasef. The levying of a per-unit tax in each auto tire sold. Supply will increaseg. The granting of a 50-cent-per-unit subsidy for each auto tire produced. Supply will increase9. How will each of the following changes in demand and/or supply affect equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity in a competitive market; that is, do price and quantity rise, fall or remain unchanged, or are the answers indeterminate because they depend on the magnitudes of the shifts? Use supply and demand diagrams to verify your answers.a. Supply decreases and demand is constant Price goes up and quantity goes downb. Demand decreases and supply is constant Price goes down and quantity also goes downc. Supply increases and demand is constant Price goes down and quantity upd. Demand increases and supply increases Price is indeterminate and the quantity goes upe. Demand increases and supply is constant Price goes up and quantity upf. Supply increases and demand decreases Price goes down and the quantity is indeterminateg.Demand increases and supply decreases Price goes up and the quantity is indeterminateh. Demand decreases and supply decreases Price is indeterminate and the quantity goes down11. Critically evaluate: â€Å"In comparing the two equilibrium positions in figure 3. 7a, I see a larger amount is actually purchased at a higher price. This refutes the law of demand† The increase in demand from D1 to D2 increases both equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity. On the second equilibrium we can see that demand has increase causing buyers to buy more at higher prices than the first equilibrium.

Financing of University Education in Kenya

QN) With close reference to university education in Kenya, discuss the various means of financing education and evaluate the equity implications. To answer this claim, we start by defining critical terms so as to clearly get the full meaning of this assertion. Education is the process act or process of impacting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgement, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.It can also be defined as the process of acquiring desirable skills, attitudes and knowledge, as for a profession University education means the totality of general and specialized knowledge and skills that enable a university graduate to solve problems that he encounters in industry or to perform scientific research or pedagogical work within the area of specialized knowledge that he has acquired.Financing refer to how people allocate their assets over time and conditions of certainity and uncertainity while education f inancing refers to any aspect of raising and spending revenue for educational purposes. Kenya as one of the developing countries in Afrca is faced with the problem of financing its education. Despite the role of the universities in teaching, undertaking research and training of skilled manpower for economic development, public and private universities in developing countries especially those in Africa are facing financial crisis.Universities in Kenya gets financial aids from different sources which include; finances from parents, self finance, Banks-some banks give education loans to students or parents, cooperative societies, Constituency Development Funds[C. D. F], scholarships from educational institutions e. g universities, charitable organizations, HELB loans, Harambees, Donations, bursaries among others. Sources of educational funds are both internal and external.Internal funds refers to finances from within the institution for example; Fees from the students, Income generatin g activities among others. While external funds come from outside the university for example; Religious organizations, Funds from central and local government, companies and organizations, scholarships, loans, International bodies, Non- Governmental Organization(NGO’s) etc.Central and local government are generally the most important sources of educational finances. The government is generally the most important and crucial source of funding for university education. The government through the parliament passed a bill that seeks to introduce radical changes to higher education, establishing a Commission for University Education(C. U.E) to be vested with wide-ranging powers as one of four new bodies running the sector in the country. The universities Act 2012 published on 24th September in Kenya gazette supplement 121 and signed by higher education, science and technology minister Margaret Kamar abolishes the decades old Commission for Higher Education(C. H. E) which has hithe rto regulated the sector and replaces it with the Commission for University Education.The universities Act 2012 stipulates that funds of a public university shall comprise: such sums as may be granted to the university by the parliament, such monies or assets as may accrue to or vest in the public university in the course of the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act or under any other written law; and all monies from any other source provided for or donated or lent to the public university with the approval of the cabinet secretary responsible for finance and the cabinet secretary responsible for university education. this act mandates the central government to advance money to the public universities for running of the programmes and activities. The government gives grants to the public universities and this money is budgeted for, in the ministry for higher education budget and this is captured in the annual budget.The grants are given to all uni versities oblivious of the programmes that they offer. The government through the parliament passed a bill that saw the creation of the Constituency Development Act that was aimed to rationalize development across the country by ensuring that all areas across Kenya had a fair share of the money set aside for development. Through the various committees established in each constituency, students in the universities are able to access bursaries to aid them in paying school fees. This bursary is given to people who are needy and who cannot afford tuition fees.For the equal distribution of the funds, the Kenyan government is giving a lot of charters to the new mushrooming universities, this is to make sure all the regions in the country get access to higher education hence equity implications. Higher Education Loans Board(H. E. L. B) is another source of funding. H. E. L. B is a state corporation whose mandate is to source funds and provide loans, scholarships and bursaries to Kenyans st udying in recognized institutions of Higher learning. It was established by an act of parliament a statute known as Higher Education Loans Board Act 1995,,and it was legally as Act number 3 of 1995. It came into existence on 21st July, 1995 through Kenya gazette supplement (CAP 213A). higher education loans board administers the student loans scheme.The board is also empowered to recover all outstanding loans given to former university students by the government of Kenya since 1952 through Higher Education Loans Fund(HELF) and to establish a revolving fund from which funds can be drawn to lend out to needy Kenyan students pursuing higher education. The establishment of a revolving fund was expected to ease pressure on the exchequer in financing education which currently stands at 40% of the annual national budget. Its vision is to be the best preferred financier of Kenyans pursuing higher education and the mission is to provide affordable loans bursaries and scholarships to Kenyans studying in recognized institutions of higher education.The board disburses loans to any Kenyan undergraduate students enrolled in government or self-sponsored programmes in Kenyan universities and other universities in other member states of east Africa community recognized by the Commision for higher education(CHE) The government through Higher Educations Loans Board ensures equity is maintained in acquisition of higher educaton since throough the electronic and online application of the sponsorship by the government, all needy students can apply for the loan irrespective of where they come from since the loan is granted depending on the level of need.Besides the loan being given to only students who qualify to go to the university by getting the required cluster set by Joint Admission Board(JAB), also students who have attained the minimum entry requirements of being admitted by a university in Kenya which is a C+(plus) are able to access this grant hence allowing them to get uni versity education through the Self-sponsored program and thus ensuring equity across the two programs. Financing of higher education in Kenya is also be done by institutions and organizations. For instance, Kenya Youth Education scholarship Fund has a mission to help needy and deserving youth with limited financial resources who display academic excellence and the desire to acquire practical skills and knowledge to enhance self reliance by pursuing higher education. The scholarship that they advance to the qualified candidates only caters for tuition and upkeep only but the cost of other accessories like personal effects is on the beneficiary.This scholarship is mostly biased to women and the aim is to enhance equity so that the girl child can as well access higher education as their male counter parts who form a large chuck of the students in the universities. USAID is another institution that sponsors university in Kenya. Each year, it sponsors around 18 higher education scholarsh ips to Kenyan students. These scholarship are offered to students from marginalized communities in Eastern and north Eastern regions and urban slums of Nairobi. The scholarship targets the minority muslim group. For one to qualify he or she must have attained the minimum of getting entry in university in Kenya. The aim for the cholarship is to bridge the gap that is so prevalent in these regions since most people don’t get the chance to pursue higher education because of the cultural dictates where girls are married off at an early age and where girl-child education is not treated with a lot of importance that it deserves. The effort by USAID ensures that most girls from these environments get university education and empowers. Some universities get direct offers of international and local scholarships. For instance Kenyatta university through the office of Orphans and Vulnerable students gives scholarships to total and/or partial orphans to enable them to pursue their univer sity education with a lot of ease. The scholarship usually covers full tuition fees for students wwho are total orphans and have been admitted to Kenyatta university.The selection is done after a careful scrutiny of documents to ascertain the level of need for the applicants. For the case of partial scholarships, the university pays 25% of the total tuition fees every year until the end of the degree program. The scholarship is given to students with proven high level of performance and genuine need for financial assistance. The university also caters for other students who have been admitted to the university and are already enrolled in one of the its programs. It gives internal butsaries to students with financial need based on the level of vulnerable students.Also, the university awards post graduate scholarships which cover the tuition fees for masters programs. The scholarship is awarded based on higher academic performance. Many universities have followed suit and are awarding scholarships to their students. This effort helps in ensuring that as many people are able to access university education even those who come from poor and destitute backgrounds because when their tuition fees is paid for, then they find it very easy to get some money for upkeep but if they have problems of fees payment, then their education may be disrupted and may be halted.Other organizations like UNESCO have fellowships that are offered to both students and teachers who want to pursue higher education in fields that enhance sustainable human development and foster international understanding and a culture of peace. It offers fellowships in the following thematic areas; education, natural sciences, social, human sciences, culture, communication and information. The aim is to enhance equity and access of university education since these are mostly given to students who exhibit some level of financial need and are high performers in academics.