How to Reload Ammunition with a Progressive Press

How to Reload Ammunition with a Progressive Press Introduction In todays society, hunters and recreational shooters have the ability to reload their own ammunition. By doing this, people save a significant amount of money when compared to continually buying boxes of new ammunition. The cost, at first, for all the equipment is very high, such that it could deter people from reloading. The reward is when people buy the necessary supplies in bulk which is cheaper per round when the remanufacturing process is complete. Figure 1 depicts a multi-stage (progressive) press that is used by avid outdoorsmen. It is the top-shelf press which is more expensive. However, it is more efficient. Figure 1: Multi-Stage (Progressive) Reloading PressSource: Types of Presses. Ultimate Reloader. January 2009. http://ultimatereloader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/progressive_press1.jpg Preparation Contrary to popular belief, the preparation stage begins while at the shooting range or while participating in any event that requires a firearm. While people shoot their guns at the shooting range, all of the expended rounds fall to the ground. The expended rounds are then picked up and assessed for damage by the person that will be reloading them. Cracked and/or bent casings will not be used as it allows for an additional liability when firing the cartridge after reloading. The most important part to collecting expended brass is to ensure that the shooter gathers the right caliber of casing. The stage continues as the shooters get back home. All of the collected used casings are loaded into case feeder with the primer of the casing facing down. The selected Die is loaded onto the top of the press. The gunpowder is measured for precision and accuracy before it is placed into the housing. With all of the components setup and in place, the next step is ready. Ready, Set, Reload! After all of the hard work has been done in preparation, the next step is to reload the rounds. The progressive press is the most desired press due to its ability to multi-task. The casings are dropped down the case feeder primer first onto the shell plate.ÂÂ   The shell plate has five (5) notches cut out of it to hold the casings in various stages of the reloading process. The person reloading pulls the handle down which turns the shell plate. Once the first round enters the shell plate and is turned, it goes to the first stage which is the primer stage. Here, the press punches the old primer out of the casing and prepares the casing for a new primer. While the first round is at this stage, a second casing is in the notch behind it getting ready for the said process. The person then pulls the handle down again and puts the first casing into the second stage which is where the casing gets a new primer. The second casing had the old primer removed from it and there is now an old casing getting ready for primer removal behind it. The person pulls the handle downward again and puts the first casing into the gunpowder stage. Here, the shell plate raises the casing into the die for gunpowder to be dispersed into the casing. The amount of gunpowder that falls into each casing is pre-determined by the user. Once the handle resets in the up position, the shell plate lowers and makes the casings ready for the next stage, whether coming into or leaving the gunpowder stage. The second round now has a new primer. The third round has been stripped of its old primer and an additional old casing has been added to the shell plate. The person will then pull the handle down which initiates the final stage: pressing the bullet into the casing. As the handle goes downward, the plate raises. Before the plate raises all the way up into the caliber die, a bullet must be hand-loaded onto the top of the casing. Once the bullet has been placed, the user then completely lowers the h andle which presses the bullet into the casing. When the handle is in the up position, the shell plate drops. A new bullet has been made. The second casing now has gunpowder in it. The third casing now has a new primer. The fourth casing has been stripped of its primer. An additional casing has been added to the first notch in the shell plate. When the user pulls the handle downward, the entire cycle has been completed. The finished casing falls into a round catch where it can be examined. The second round is getting ready for a bullet to be pressed into it. The third casing has had gunpowder added to it. The fourth round has a new primer. The fifth round has had its old primer punched from its casing. Conclusion Although the process of reloading ammunition appears to be very tedious and difficult, with some experience on the equipment anyone could do it. The equipment is designed such that it allows shooters and hunters to be successful when reloading their own ammunition while also remaining safe both during the reloading process and firing the reloaded ammunition. The different stages of the press as stated above all serve a very crucial part in manufacturing ones own ammunition. As the casings turn, they progress towards something bigger, hints the name progressive press.

Allisons Foreign Policy Models

Allisons Foreign Policy Models Graham Allisons Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the models strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis. Number of criticism has risen regarding Allisons conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Cornford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allisons model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allisons model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis. This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allisons conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allisons Essence of Decision, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Allisons Conceptual Framework Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM) Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in states action. The model reduces the organizational and governmental political complications by looking at government as unified actor.  [1]  Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as black box- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate theà £Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€š ¬pros and cons, and afterward, rank all the options by their chance to succeed.  [2]   Its feature of being simple and easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Moreover, RAM which stresses on interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Therefore, since it does not require much information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suitable in a crisis situation. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process. On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually impact the policy making process. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives.  [3]  Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are very importantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model.  [4]   Model II: Organizational Process Difficulties will arise when the cases that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with a complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III. Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme.  [5]  Each organization has its own mission and function and series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II is restricted based on SOP that they believe, will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors. Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, produces some advantages. It emphasizes the importance of domestic political influences in foreign policy decision making process that sometimes missed out in RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization.  [6]   Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analysts understanding of organizations and their behaviour.  [7]  Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model II. Model III: Governmental Politics Governmental politics or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational action. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (where you stand depends on where you sit).  [8]  Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision.  [9]   Between Allisons three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III does not only explain the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why sometimes individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective. Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside. Criticism toward Allisons conceptual framework Allisons conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allisons model à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is misleading, dangerous, and compelling.  [10]  Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allisons model will be critically discussed and assessed. Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art have claimed that Allison did not present a completely brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Cornford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March.  [11]  Furthermore, Cornford has claimed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Model IIIà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is pure Neustadt.  [12]  Horelick et al. supported Cornfords argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists.  [13]  Ball and Art also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt.  [14]   Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilized and developed earlier scholars work as he mentioned in his book, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this encourages much repackaging of existing theoriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [15]  Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II.  [16]  Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.  [17]  Moreover, Bernstein has argued that the model is a helful summary of earlier decision making research to present a practical mode of analysis and guide to understand business and organizational decision.  [18]  Hence, we coul d argue that Allisons originality does not claim the originality of development of the model. The originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  [19]   Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM.  [20]  As Cornford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process.  [21]  Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application. In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model.  [22]   However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics models major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model.  [23]   Allisons alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.  [24]  The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.  [25]  In contrast, Smith argues that criticism regarding the elimination of bureaucrats responsibility à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carrie d out.  [26]  In some cases, the President still has the power and responsibility in deciding the final decision and for most of the cases, the President will be the one who chose the key group of decision maker. Therefore, even though Allisons model can be an excuse for bureaucrats, we can argue that the criticism from Steel and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified. Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allisons model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Unions policy making)  [27]  , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is a growing consensusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.  [28]  Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process.  [29]  Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allisons model is not a universal model and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.  [ 30]  Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis; as he has noted that examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.  [31]   Nevertheless, some analysts have argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party.  [32]  Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allisons model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the extension of Allisons model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies.  [33]   Case Study: Singapores Defence Posture Change In the early 1980s, Singapore announced a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (poisonous shrimp) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the porcupine). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allisons model to analyse Singapores domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapores ruling party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III.  [34]  The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapores defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change in its defence posture from a poisonous shrimp to a porcupine. Model II first reveals the appropriate developm ent of both Singapores military capability and military planning ability. Furthermore, model III then proves details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat.  [35]  Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allisons model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Pak Shun Ng has argued Allisons assumption that policy is the outcome of bargaining process is not applicable policy making in reality. In fact, decision makers do not automatically have different missions.  [36]  Therefore he argued that political bargaining model assumptions are too restrictive to explain real-life government decisions sufficiently, they should be relaxed so as to increase the explanatory power of the model.  [37]  Furthermore, the case study of Singapores policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allisons models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate. Conclusion The essay has discussed Allisons conceptual frameworks, by looking at each model and its pros and cons. Moreover, a number of major criticisms about the utility of Allisons model have also discussed and critically assessed. The first criticism is regarding the originality of the model, which has been criticised that, in fact, Allison did not bring anything new to the table; instead the models are just developed from earlier scholarship. However, we can argue that the originality of Allison model does not lie in the formulation of the models, but at the consistency in applying the model to one case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hence, the fact that it focus on Cuban Crisis has leaded us to the following criticism, the flexibility of the model to be utilized to other countries. Some foreign policy analyst have argued that Allisons conceptual framework is not applicable to other country that is not industrialized enough to have a complex bureaucratic politics, like the United States. A group of analyst also argued that the model actually is not applicable for country with strong influence of communist party, namely the Soviet Union, even though it is heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. Another criticism also attacked the relationship between Allisons model, especially model II and model III. There is an argument that model II and model III are hardly separated from each other, and in some cases, they are combined into one major model, the bureaucratic politics model. Moreover, problem arose from the model about the availability of the data. The bureaucratic politics model requires specific data and evidence that hardly available. The model has also been argued to eliminate responsibility of top level bureaucrats in policy making. However, we can argue that in some cases, the President will be the one who holds the final decision and responsibility toward the outcome (policy). In the final section of the essay, there is a case study about Singapores policy change in early 1980s. By looking at the case study, we can conclude that after some modification, we can apply Allisons model to small and non-western countries like Singapore. Moreover, after Ng modified the model to be more applicable to non-western countries, he argued that model II and model III give better explanation on the policy change, rather than model I. However, from the case study we can also point out that model II and model III are completed each other and hardly separated. This essay has discussed some general criticisms, aside from specific criticism about its utility on Cuban Missile Crisis. Even though its a complex model and has been heavily criticized by some analyst, Allison has successfully provided fresh yet provocative alternative conceptual frameworks in decision making process. Allison does not intend to supplant any previous model, rather just provide a supplement framework in decision making study. Furthermore, in his book, Allison strongly emphasized that the model itself is unfinished; therefore he encourages foreign policy analysts as well as the reader to join and carry on the discussion about the model. Moreover, even though it cannot be fully utilized in all states, as case study of Singapore has shown, with small modification, the model can be utilized and proved to give better explanation than RAM.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil Essay -- Essays Papers

The Knowledge of Good and Evil The quest for knowledge and learning has been occuring since the creation of mankind. Ever since the serpent in the Garden of Eden tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, promising she would wise as the gods, man has been battling with this endless pursuit. Some men want wisdom so that they may be able to live a good and righteous life. Other men want only the power that knowledge can bring them, to use it for their own sinful purposes. Literature tells the history of two very different men who had this desire for wisdom; King Solomon in the Old Testament, remembered for his wisdom and uprightness; and the legendary Doctor Faustus, known for his sinful pact with the devil. While driven by opposing forces, both men wanted to be exceedingly wise, and each had an encounter with a remarkable woman because of it. The bible recounts the story of the great King Solomon, the son of the notable King David. By following God and his commandments, David had built his empire into a legacy, which was then passed on to Solomon. Soon after Solomon’s reign began, the Lord appeared to him in a dream, offering him anything he desired. Solomon’s request was wisdom and knowledge, so that he may govern his people fairly, and know the difference between good and the bad. Therefore, God granted Solomon wisdom, that of which no one before or since has had in such abundance. And because Solomon chose wisdom, showing concern for his people, God decided to reward him with not only knowledge, but with riches and honor to set him apart from all other kings in history. Solomon then used his riches to build an official house for the lord, to show his love and reverence for God Almighty. Solomon’s reputation quickly spread, reaching the Queen of Sheba. Intrigued, she visited him, bringing rich gifts with her: spices, gold, precious stones. The queen was very smart herself, almost an equal in money and riches to Solomon. Upon meeting Solomon though, the queen was immediately impressed by his wisdom. She soon converted to his religion, swearing that his God must indeed be the greatest. Solomon’s righteousness and virtue are the antithesis of Doctor Faustus, the title character of Christopher Marlowe’s play, â€Å"The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus.† In this story, we see a man with n... ...all too human desire for pleasurable things. Had it not been for the enticement of having Helen in his bed, Faustus may have repented, and turned from his deal with the devil. But because he let his baser desires rule him, Faustus promised to do whatever necessary for the devil, just so that he may have Helen of Troy as his â€Å"paramour.† This carnal desire sealed Faustus’ fate, and in the end, he is taken away to hell by fiends. Obviously, the desire for knowledge and the power that comes with it can be either a wonderful blessing or a damning curse. Solomon is an instance of how knowledge and power can be used for good. When encountering a beautiful, exotic woman, Solomon kept a level head and impressed her with his supreme brilliance and power. Solomon didn’t let his lusty desires rule his life; he let God hold the reins. On the other hand, there is Doctor Faustus, whose arrogance and sinfulness led to his own downfall. At a point when he was considering turning away from the devil, Faustus lets the promise of fleshly pleasures with a beautiful woman steer him back to the devil. Although he was granted unlimited knowledge, Faustus clearly didn’t learn anything.

Charlotte Bronte Critiques Victorian Culture in Jane Eyre Essay

â€Å"Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.† Mary Shelley, in addition to the direct interpretation, suggests with this declaration that not only are humans resistant to and resentful of change, but so too are the societies in which they live, especially when the social order is directly challenged. This natural tendency causes change to occur slowly in societies after years of different ‘radicals’ pushing for transformation. Their critiques, especially in the beginning, are received with scorn and contempt. It takes a unique voice to covertly instill some of the contentious messages in the mind of the general public. Charlotte Brontà «, through her telling Jane’s life story, conveys controversial concepts about Victorian Society in an acceptable way. She illustrates her scorn for the rigid class structure, her disillusionment with devout religious ideals, and her belief that women deserve more rights than what they ar e allocated in her society. Brontà « also contends that Victorian values of money and superficial beauty over love and mortality are innately incorrect. She is able to disparage her society’s values because of her subtle style of stressing her own ideals. In the Victorian era, social mobility was rarely possible and those belonging to inferior classes were not valued. Brontà « makes Jane an advocate for the acceptance of other classes and of social mobility by giving Jane an ambiguous social standing. She comes from a good family, is well-educated, yet for most of the novel she is a poor orphan. She acts subserviently towards Rochester and St. John, yet will not blindly follow their wishes or fold to their commands – she will only â€Å"obey [Rochester] in all that is right†. This, along wit... ...als reasons for women’s equality and for why she believes love and morality should be valued over superficial Victorian values of beauty, wealth and social status. Brontà « truly makes her critiques of Victorian culture effective by covertly integrating them into her novel through her female protagonist, Jane. Works Cited Bossche, Chris R. Vanden. "What did Jane Eyre do? Ideology, agency, class and the novel." Narrative 13.1 (2005): 46+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. Brontà «, Charlotte, and Arthur Zeiger. Jane Eyre. New York: New American Library, 1982. Print. Kaplan, Carla. "Girl Talk: Jane Eyre and the Romance of Women's Narration." Novel: A Forum on Fiction 30.1 (Fall 1996): 5-31. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Kathy D. Darrow. Vol. 217. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Literature Resource Center. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

Ford :: essays papers

Ford The Good Soldier, utilises a variety of literary techniques to construct meaning and propel imaginative power. Ford uses figurative language to initiate the polarity of â€Å"Convention and Passion†(1) and a divergent narrative style and structure to present cultural issues such as the quest for human knowledge and the imprisonment of society. â€Å"The long afternoon wore on† commences in the context of Nancy’s revelations. She has read the account of the Brand divorce case in the newspapers and is apprehending the manifestations of recently discovered phenomena. Ford employs a vocabulary that is mournful and dull to conjure up images of shadow and anguish. He uses words like â€Å"frightened,† â€Å"writhed,† â€Å"agony,† â€Å"pain† and â€Å"gloomy† to connote feelings of â€Å"affaissement.† These are juxtaposed with the vocabulary of the second half of the passage: â€Å"lover’s,† â€Å"flame ,† and â€Å"cheerful† which signifies the corruption of Nancy’s chastised mind. Knowledge of convention takes â€Å"all sweetness†¦out of life.† The lexicogrammar interplays the theme of â€Å"Convention and Passion† as being unable to exist congruently in â€Å"the law of the land† and cognition of human nature as futile, leading only to darkness. Ford expresses the degenerative nature of human passion in the metaphor: a tune in which major notes with their cheerful insistence wavered and melted into minor sounds as, beneath a bridge the highlights on dark waters melt and waver and disappear into black depths. The anagoge alludes to images of passion fading into darkness. An antithesis of light and dark, black and white, the certitude of Passion succumbing to Convention: Society must go on, I suppose, and society can only exist if the normal, if the virtuous, and the slightly-deceitful flourish, and if the passionate, the headstrong, and the too truthful are condemned Samuel Hynes, ‘The Epistemology of The Good Soldierâ⠂¬â„¢, The Good Soldier, Norton Critical Edition (1995. W.W. Norton & Company) to suicide and to madness. Nancy’s love must regress, as the etiquette of society must prosper. Fatally for those who were unable to conform to â€Å"the technicalities of English life† due to burgeoning eroticisms, â€Å"the end was plainly manifest.† Ford creates imagery of umbra and shadow elsewhere in the novel: â€Å"inevitably they pass away as the shadows across sundials.† Ford’s adumbrations of unillumination may also reflect the restrictions of human knowledge. Darkness reflects the tenuousness of human cognition. Dowell proposes earlier: what is there to guide us in the more subtle morality of all other personal contacts, associations, and activities?

International versus U.S. Standards Essay

In 2007, the SEC modified its position on the Form 20-F requirement when it issued; â€Å"Acceptance from Foreign Private Issuers of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards without Reconciliation to GAAP.† This rule amends Form 20-F to accept from foreign private issuers in their filings with the SEC financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board without reconciliation to generally accepted accounting principles as used in the United States. _Required:_ What was the SEC’s rationale for this decision? How did the American Accounting Association respond to the SEC proposal? CASE 3-8 IASB VS. FASB CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS Discuss the similarities and differences between the FASB and IASB conceptual frameworks with respect to the definitions of the elements of financial statements. CASE 3-9 IASC HOME PAGE Log onto the World Wide Web and enter the International Accounting Standards Board’s home page. _Required:_ a. What general categories of information are contained on the IASB’s home page? b. What current issues is the IASB reviewing? FINANCIAL ANALYSIS CASE GAAP vs. International Accounting Standards _Required:_ Find a foreign company that is selling securities in the U.S. securities markets and comment on the change in net income that was caused by changing from the company’s domestic accounting standards to U.S. GAAP.

Meaning of life Essay

A man once said†¦ â€Å" A man once said to the universe: Sir do I exist However, replied the universe the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation†. The great Philosopher Stephen Crane explained his work in existentialism by writing this quote. Existentialism is the philosophy and cultural movement that holds the starting point of philosophy. Thinking must be the individual and experiences of the individual. The quote that Stephen crane wrote, talks about how just because he exist the universe isn’t going to change just because you only exist. Your te one that has to give your life meaning. The philosophy of existentialism does not have a specific school or books. But it is a way of living your life as you want but still knowing what the consequences are. The most important human activity is decision making. Through our choices, we create our lives and become ourselves when you wake up every morning you think for yourself and make your own decision using your own thoughts and actions. No one lives forever therefore make your time worthwhile enjoy your life how you like to live it don’t let anything or anyone make decision for you. Today’s living is much commercialized. It’s all around you and always trying to convince you to do what they want, and buy what they want. The movie â€Å" Fight Cllub† is based off of the theory of existentialism. As the movie starts tyler durden is just going through the motions of living life. He keeps the same routine day in and day out. He goes to work. He hates his boss. But never has the courage to stand up for him self he does whatever the boss tells him to without questioning her. Then he goes back to his apartment that he has identical to the ikea magazine. All of his furniture, carpets, cups, covers, and chairs exactly as the pictures on the ikea magazine. He’s sitting back letting the commercializing life take over him. He doesn’t know who he is. As the movie proceeds tyler durden starts getting fed up of how he’s been living life. The moment that he himself blew up his apartment was because he wanted a whole new start and starts taking control of his life. This is where I believe he starts living the theory of existentialism. After he blows up his condo he moves to a old abanded house, and gets rid of al his commercialized material. All this came from fighting. When he fought in the â€Å"fight club† it wasn’t about winning or losing it was about letting yourself free. Fighting brought the men some indrenalum and for those minutes they fought they felt alive and forgot about all their problems. In this society Living in today’s society you have to follow a certain set of rules just to fit into the â€Å"normal† people a lot of humans in this society just sit back and watch their lives go by in their movie tyler durden helps me understand that instead of us just being spectator and watching things through our TV and magazines we should go out and be participating members of what ever you would like to do. In the book â€Å" the stranger† Meursault helped me understand the concept of existentialism. When Meursault’s mother dies. Meursault has to ask his boss for sometime off because his mother has died. Meursault tells his boss sorry for taking the time off. This makes me think that he really didn’t care that his mom passed away he seen it as a set back to his usual life. â€Å" Maman died. Or yesterday maybe I don’t know, I got a telegram from the home† when I read this it immediately gives me an impression of a lack of emotion towards the death of his mother. This lack of emotion shows the existentialist idea that we all die, it doesn’t matter what life we have while we are alive we simply exist, as Meursault did. As you keep reading the novel, You take notice that Meursault doesn’t like introducing himself with neighbors. It seems to me as if Meursault simply acts to fill his time. He is a single man that has a lot of time to fill. And he finally starts figuring out that his weekends pass by particularly slowly. The way I started noticing is Meursault started to us short sentences to convey an atmosphere showing emotion and feelings. You could really take notice of this between page 21 and 24, at the end of chapter two, when Meursault is giving a very descriptive narrative of the life outside his window on a typical Sunday. He ends the chapter by saying â€Å"one more Sunday was over†¦ nothing had changed†. Throughout the entire book â€Å"the stranger† Meursault is a very laid back guy that doesn’t let many things effect his actions. He believes everyone is just here to fill in some spots. That there is no meaning in life. Since everyone will die. But at the end of the book he is put in front of death. And this is where all his emotion comes out. He now understands that he had been mistaken that he never had anyone close to him in his life. The natural human nature is to interact with other humans, and once he was put in front of death he wished people knew who he was.