Why and to what extent have conservatives Essay Example for Free

Why and to what extent have conservatives Essay Why and to what extent, have conservatives supported One Nation principles? [45] One nation conservatism stems from the paternalistic branch of conservatives and thus has a bias towards principles such as social duty and moral obligation, specifically the obligation of the better-off in society to support or aid the less well-off, reflecting Disraelis desire to prevent the UK becoming two nations; the haves and the have nots. This essay will argue that there is support for One Nation principles throughout the many traditions within conservatism but that there is significant opposition to some One Nation principles also. One principle in which there is support for by some conservatives is pragmatism. The basis for pragmatism in One Nationism is reflected in a fear of revolution, stemming from ever widening social inequality. Disraeli feared that social inequality was the seed of revolution and thus aimed to improve the conditions of the less well-off in society so as to keep them content with their living standards. However it is important to note that these improvements are limited to the desire to ensure that the poor no longer pose a threat to established order. This pragmatic approach to politics and social policy is reflected in Burkes statement that a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservatism. The conservative New Right have accepted pragmatism, evident in modern times where the Conservative party under Cameron has kept many social security and welfare programs running in the UK. By tradition, conservatives have had a tendency to be empirical in nature. Empiricism refers to the use of the knowledge derived from the past in remaining pragmatic in solving current political problems. The empirical nature of conservatives is evident in Burkes assertion that no generation should ever be so harsh as to consider itself superior to its predecessor. Thus, One Nation conservatism may been favourable to some conservatives since a paternalistic body with links to the past can uphold the workings of the past which have responded well for several hundred years. The paternalistic bodies of authority in One Nation conservatives will uphold the famous conservative phrase that if it aint broke, dont fix it, thus showing clear compatibilities with other forms of conservatism. One Nationism also supports the principle of hierarchy in society as they believe it to be both natural and inevitable. Their firm attachment to a society structured by an inevitable hierarch derives from the innate roles in the family, where the father is to be the head of the household and his family to whom which he will provide for are his subordinates. It follows that this view on hierarchy compliments authoritarianism which is evident throughout both traditional conservatism and neoconservatism. The former tradition also views hierarchy as natural and uses the image of the father as the head of the family, as the right to exercise power from above. The latter highlights the significance of a hierarchy as to the maintenance of security, such as that knowing where you stand in society, or in a social group. They believe that this security is provided by the father of the family via means of strong paternalistic curtailment of liberty. As this view of hierarchy leads itself to authoritarian views, Libertarians strongly disagree with the principle. They believe that government should have the least possible regulation on social life. Thus they view the positive curtailment of liberty to be a violation and believe that negative liberty has priority over all forms of authority, tradition and equality. From the view that the father is the provider in a family, One Nationism has constructed its approach to social policy. Disraeli was a supporter of noblesse oblige, that is, the price paid in return for operating authority as a government as the political obligations of the state to maintain a stable society and economy. The principled basis for One Nationism is that the rich have a moral obligation to help the poor, as the positions of both are largely based on the accident of birth which is supported by Rawls notion of brute luck. Duty is therefore the price of privilege and those who are privileged must shoulder the burden of those who are not. This view has been supported by Social conservatives who have kept to the Labour policies of for instance providing a wide range of choice in the provision of education and the NHS. However these views are not accepted by other forms of conservatism such as the liberal New Right, who see the social reforms and policies as creating a culture of dependency which may lead to the breakup of the nuclear family, as the father is no longer the provider. One Nation conservatives also support the idea of planned capitalism. This is a pragmatic rejection of the laissez faire approach to the economy mainly because of the crisis of the Depression of the 1920s. This middle-way economics aimed to keep some aspects of a free market but couple them with social and welfare policies funded by government. They believed that the state had an obligation to intervene in the economy to provide welfare services to prevent abject poverty. This is somewhat supported by Christian conservatives who aim to help the needy in society. There is also further support of compassionate conservativism since the 1980s and a shift away from market fundamentalism. However there is further disagreement with neoliberalism as they disagree in state intervention in social or economic policy and are not attuned to the view of the deserving poor. In conclusion, it is evident that there is agreement between conservatism and One Nation principles on matters such as hierarchy but the extent to which depends on how the view is portrayed. Different traditions view the principles in different lights and thus have different outcomes regarding the principle. It is also evident that One Nationism shares many similarities with the conservative New Right but finds itself largely at opposition with neoliberal viewpoints. Thus, One Nation conservatism has tended to find support due to its emphasis on empiricism, natural inequality, tradition and the organic society. The overall conservative support towards One Nation notions is to a large throughout traditional forms, and is limited when theories of neoliberalism develop.

Deaf Technology :: essays research papers

-TTY TTYs (also called Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD) and text telephones) are used for two-way text conversation over a telephone line. They are the primary tool used by deaf people (and some hard of hearing people) for telephone conversation. Other visual telecommunications technologies and services, such as Internet chat and messaging, email, e-paging, and fax and e-mail are also used in telecommunications by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. -TRS Telecommunications relay services (TRS) provide voice telephone users and people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or speech-disabled to communicate over a regular telephone line. TRS is mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. There have been many new improvements in TRS in the last several years. These improvements give users choices that make TRS calls more natural and â€Å"functionally equivalent† to voice telephone communications. -Video relay service Using a high-speed Internet connection or ISDN, a video connection is established; a qualified sign language interpreter relays the conversation with the voice telephone party. -CapTel Captioned Telephone is a new product of Ultratec, being tested in several states. CapTel is an innovative service in which the operators repeat the words of the hearing party into an automatic speech recognition system for rapid transcription. Voice and data are carried on one line so that the hard of hearing or deaf user can monitor the speech as well as see the transcription. The CapTel phone is set up for â€Å"dial through† so that the user does not need to dial the relay service first. -ASR Automatic speech recognition is the most successful and accurate of these applications. It is currently making a use of a technique called â€Å"shadowing† or sometimes called â€Å"voicewriting.† Rather than have the speaker’s speech directly transcribed by the system, a hearing person whose speech is well-trained to an ASR system repeats the words being spoken. This technique can greatly improve the accuracy of the system compared to direct ASR transcription of speech while that speaker is engaged in conversation or lecturing to a group of people.

The Ministry of Defense of Belarus and Russia

This paper is a comparative treatment of two ministries of defense of substantial strategic importance to the world, that of Russia and Belarus. Both countries have had strained relationships with the United States and the western world and have been actively pursuing activities with those countries hostile to western imperialism such as China and Venezuela.This paper will, first, summarize the basic structure and relations of the two ministries, and then compare and contrast them. A conclusion will attempt to bring these insights together. The Ministry of Defense of Belarus:Interestingly, the Defense Ministry of Belarus has its roots in the reaction to the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. This disaster is one of the main reasons the two republics it affected, Ukraine and Belarus (as the city is on their border) declared independence from the USSR several years later. In fact, the very first piece of legislation establishing this ministry (in 1992) was explicitly titled the â€Å"Reactio n against the Affects of Chernobyl† and acted as a form of public mobilization against the tremendous health risks of the airborne radiation (â€Å"Legislative Basis,† 2009).But in the era of 1991-1992, historic in that it was the era of the fall of the USSR and the independence of the Warsaw Pact nations and the former Soviet Republics, saw the Belorussian state declare independence from the defunct USSR and develop its own institutions, chief among them was the ministry of defense. Several issues presented themselves: first, about half of the Belarusian republican army was of Russian descent, and second, that thousands of Belarusian troops were serving the former USSR in countries abroad.The newly formed independent Belarusian government then implemented programs that re-Belarussianized the armed forces and brought those expatriated soldiers home (Global Security, 2008). The structure of the Defense ministry is not civilian, and in fact, a major issue in Belarusian po litical culture is the means by which the purely military aspects of the Ministry and its civilian contacts could be regularized. But at the moment, the entire staff of the Ministry are uniformed officers. Currently, the Minister of Defense is Col. Gen.Leonid Maltsyev (appointed 2001), and he is supported by a general staff that includes the following offices: the chief of staff of the armed forces of the republic, the deputy minister, a ministry dedicated to armaments and acquisitions, then Logistics, army command and lastly, the air command and the air defense. As Belarus is landlocked, there is no naval force. The structure of the Ministry in terms of a chain of command is that the Defense Ministry is a part of the Council of Ministers, itself directly under the President of the Republic, currently the wildly popular Alexander Luksahenko.The General staff serves directly under the Defense Minister, and under him stand the land, air and support staffs in a position of equality. Fi nally, under the land forces stand logistics. Hence, the doctrine here is that Logistics and strategy stand under the land army, while the air corps follows orders. Hence, the equality between land and air forces is theoretical only. The tradition of the ministry is that land forces should predominate, and air forces act as an auxiliary to them. The mentality and culture of the Ministry follows a very specific doctrine. Its main points are the following:a) that the ministry is dedicated to a â€Å"balanced† cooperation among states. There is to be strict neutrality in terms of â€Å"power blocs,† and cooperation will not follow and specific â€Å"ideological† bent, but what serves the mission of the ministry in terms of the defense of the republic. b) that this ministry will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons. c) that it operates in accordance with a strict equity with other states (â€Å"Military Doctrine,† 2009). In addition, the â€Å"Military Doct rine† of the Republic is an important source for the basic functioning of the Ministry.The most interesting elements of this more or less bureaucratic document are the conditions that must prevail for the military services of the republic to respond if the republic is threatened. The document itself calls this the â€Å"political-military† situations that permit the usage of armed force in general, but are obviously applied to Belarus specifically. Hence it is a sort of a moral blueprint where force can be used, though it does not specify the amount of force in each case. These are: a) the lack of effective political mechanisms to solve political problems.b) economic imperialism , that is, the desire for advanced countries to use their economic and political clout to exploit smaller and weaker states; c) the domination of a few major powers over the resources of the globe d) the development of new technologies that threaten the typical military balance in the world e) t he use of propaganda to overthrow states (in other words, the use of a controlled media to manipulate public opinion over and above normal democratic channels) f) the manipulation of ethnic groups in order to create a volatile situation (â€Å"Bases,† 2009).Needless to say, this official doctrine of the defense ministry makes perfect sense given the small size and vulnerability of the republic. Belarus is a part of the non-aligned movement, which brings the Ministry of Defense, Foreign Affairs and the Presidency into regular co-operation. Since Belarus has regular treaties with Venezuela, Russia, Vietnam and China, the policy here is to co-operate fully with the president and the foreign ministry in developing a â€Å"non-aligned† movement that seeks to alter the current â€Å"uni-polar† nature of global power.Hence, the Defense Ministry is following directives placed by the presidency and the Foreign Ministry in developing a place in the world for smaller, weak er powers who seek to create a power balance with the west rather than have the west dominate them. Hence, the Defense Ministry has adopted a defense policy that is completely in line with that of the presidency, the council of ministers, the foreign ministry and the nature of being in charge of the defense of a small country. Lastly, since Belarus economically is one of the most dynamic countries in the world, the funding of the military forces has never been an issue (IMF, 2009).The fall of the USSR meant that many of the Russian forces in the Warsaw Pact countries were backed right into Belarus, leading to a situation where Belarus was one of the most militarized countries in the world. President Lukashenko sought to reduce the number of forces, end conscription, and hence, reduce the strain of the armed forces on the budget. Today, the armed forces are a fraction of what they cost in 1992, leading to a smooth relationship with the finance ministry and the presidency. Thus, in co nclusion, the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Belarus is a model for the developing world.It seeks no political power, since it already is directly represented in the council of ministers and the ministry itself is run by uniformed officers appointed by the President. It cooperates fully with the foreign ministry in developing a military doctrine in line with the â€Å"non-aligned† movement. It seeks a balanced co-operation with the world and a reduction in the number of both nuclear and conventional weapons systems in world politics. It has been steadily reducing its cost to the ministry of finance, leading to–to say the least–a smooth working relationship. The Defense Ministry of RussiaThe structure of the Russian Ministry of Defense is largely civilian. The Minister himself is Anatoly Serdyuvkov, who, significantly, was a former tax official under Putin. However, immediately under him is a uniformed officer, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, who was the former com mander of the Siberian military district. This is significant for one major reason, it is the post that places the Russian armed forces in direct connection and communication with the Asian powers, especially China. Under the Minister and General Makarov, there is a First Deputy Minister and a States Secretary for Defense.Under him is a woman, Lyubov Kudelina, who is in charge of the relationships between Finance and Defense. While the Minister himself is a former tax official, Mrs. Kudelina also worked at Finance and was deeply involved with tax collection. It would be noted that at the fall of the USSR between 1990 and 1993, tax collection almost completely bottomed out. The money and institutions for collection no longer functioned, and taxes were reduced to protection money from the local criminal gangs. Vladimir Putin, financed by oil money, reversed this trend.Hence, there should be no surprise that two major figures in the defense ministry have little military experience, but were both close to the financial and taxing apparatus (â€Å"Senior Officials,† 2009). Under the Defense Ministry’s Finance representative lies, not surprisingly, the chief of armaments, the chief of Logistics and another deputy minister. Since logistics and armaments procurement are costly productions, their subordination to the finance representative is no surprise. This structure seems eminently rational. It builds in inter-agency cooperation within the Defense Ministry itself especially within the all-important financial end.What is more important, however, is how the agency views itself, its mission and its role in the government. Like in the Belarussian case, the Russian Defense Ministry, in cooperation with the presidency and the ministry of finance, has developed a comprehensive understanding of itself in the world and in the Russian, and post-Soviet world. First and foremost, before any other consideration, the Ministry of Defense makes it clear that its numb er one priory in the defense of Russia is to maintain a high level of deterrence. It seeks to defend Russia by making any attack on it of painfully high cost.After this, combat readiness is the next priority, and within this priority is the concept of high mobility. Speed and the efficient use of resources is a major part of the Russian defense strategy. It is cheaper and more efficient to maintain small numbers of infantry, but backed by the highest in technology in terms of missile defense, the air corps and intelligence (â€Å"Development,† 2009). After this, three elements come into play: first, the nature of high-technology weapons, the war on terror and the protection of the environment.This latter even has its own office, under a General trained in economy, General Alevtin Yuruk in a rater unique arrangement where his office interfaces with the rest of the Russian government to loosen up funds and manpower to repair any environmental damage caused by the action of the armed forces, and most importantly, the safe keeping of the nuclear stockpile. After Chernobyl, the environment is more than just a saccharine slogan, it is a matter of life and death (â€Å"Environmental Protection,† 2009). But apart from the above strategic considerations, there is another, moral, sense of Russia’s defense ministry and its place in the world.The fall of the USSR made it clear that the Russian Federation was to recreate its mission, its identity and its interaction with the outside world. Hence, the ministry has, in communication with the past three presidents of the post USSR world, created a moral sense of itself, one based on the following ideas: a) the creation of a democratic international order where a few major powers do not control the world’s resources; b) force can be used only with the express permission of the UN c) forces worldwide should be decreased to a minimum and used solely for defense d) to create the infrastructure for Russ ia’s new mission as a major powere) international cooperation necessary for the war on terror, drugs and mafia activities f) co-operation, not confrontation wit the USA g) Asia is the future, and hence, building strong ties with China and Vietnam become of paramount importance (â€Å"Global Cooperation,† 2009). Several conclusions can be drawn from this. First, Russia clearly sees its defense role as a great power, not as a second tier force. Second, it seeks to create an international order based on equity, around the security council of the UN and its decisions where Russia has a veto. It sees China as central to its future security.And, lastly, it sees China, or more specifically the Russia-China Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a means of balancing its relations with the US, NATO and the EU. Hence, balance and cooperation over confrontation seems to be the theoretical grounding (â€Å"Global Cooperation† 2009). The mission of the Defense Department in Russia is mirrored by the two other agencies (other than finance, which are intertwined deliberately), the Presidency and the Foreign Ministry. In a speech dated January 18, 2009, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov laid out the foreign policy goals of Russia, and these consist in the following ideas:a) the rebuilding of the financial system fo the globe on a more democratic basis. The Russian government has made clear that it is the â€Å"imbalance† of the system that caused the meltdown,. Too much mon3y in too few hands, both in terms of stats and individuals is the cause of the meltdown. The post-World War II system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt on an equitable basis. b) The unilateral recognition of the â€Å"independence† of Kosovo and the US/Israeli support of Georgian aggression against the Ossetians prove the need for a real democratic world order, not one controlled by the US and its few allies.Russian intervention to repel the Georgian invasion of Ossetia (who voted for independence and union with Russia) was meant to help create the infrastructure for a new international order, since Georgia would not have invaded had the US guaranteed diplomatic support. c) Lavrov states â€Å"the era of national egoism is over. † d) he seeks what he calls a â€Å"polycentric world order. † e) and, as seen above, cooperation with the EU is as important as cooperation with China. China is not mentioned in Lavrov’s speech, which is significant (Lavarov, 2008).On the other hand, the foreign policy concept of the Russian Presidency stresses China far more than the EU. Medvedev makes the claim that China is a major, if not the major, priority of Russian foreign policy. Polycentrism is again stressed, and again, that the imbalance of the world financial system–too much money in too few hands–is the cause of the recent meltdown. Lastly, the foreign policy ideas of the new president seek to establish strong environmental standards, energy security and a price structure that is fair and steady and that all economic growth be environmentally sustainable (Medvedev, 2008).Several things derive from this comparison: there may be a coalition of defense and Presidency against the foreign ministry over the issue of China. While it remains that President Medvedev and the Defense Ministry treat China as the number one priority (and several recent summits between Peking and Moscow over military matters reflects this), Lavarov seems to think that the EU should have this role. However, these agencies seem to have more in common than anything else, and these commonalities should be taken as basic ministerial policy: Russia as a great power, polycentricity, economic democracy and basic international equality.Conclusion: Comparison of Belarus and Russia in Defense Policy It does not take a genius to figure out that both Belarus and Russia are responding to American pressure and military adventurism. Both countries are threatened by American expansionism in both the economic and military spheres. Hence, their defense ministries reflect this. And of course, since Russia and Belarus are politically and ethnically connected, as well as vulnerable to American pressure, their defense policies will overlap in several areas.However, the size differences of Russia and Belarus will also be the cause of some differences in policy, especially since Belarus makes no claim to great power status, but in fact, would like to see the concept of â€Å"great powers† disappear. The main similarities of the two defense departments are their stress on international equity and polycentricity. The world order should reflect diversity in nations and interests, not the domination of the US and its allies in world politics and finance. Both ministries would like to see drastic reductions in the arms of the world, and arms to be used solely for defense, not for offense.Both ministries see a balanced foreign polic y as central: that Asia should be used to balance Europe and Europe to balance the US. Both Belarus and Russian military brass are visiting China and Venezuela on a regular basis, and both countries have signed arms deals with Peking and Caracas. Needless to say, this is a means of balancing US hegemony and the US involvement in Iraq, Africa and the Balkans. It might be surmised that the Belarusian ministry is purely military because Belarus is small and very vulnerable. Hence, the military forces must have direct access to state power in order to act quickly.This was made especially important when threats of invasion came from the McCain presidential camp. The Russians, less vulnerable to assault and attack, can afford some space between civilian and military personnel, though the second in command of the ministry in Russia is the chief of staff. It is curious that the Minister of Defense for Russia has little military experience, but much financial experience. This suggests that t he ministry really is designed to interface with the rest of the government to create an integral policy, while actual military decisions are in the hands of the second in command, General Makarov.This sort of interfacing is certainly a good beginning for further research in this field. References: This paper used mostly primary sources in its construction. The most important were: On Belarus: (www. mod. mil. by) Ministry of Defense. â€Å"Administrative Board. † Belarusian Defense Ministry Portal. 2009 Ministry of Defense. â€Å"Legislative Basis. † Belarusian Defense Ministry Portal. 2009 Ministry of Defense. â€Å"Military Doctrine of the Republic of Belarus. † Belarusian Defense Ministry Portal. 2009 Ministry of Defense. â€Å"The Bases of the Military Policy of the Republic of Belarus. † Belarusian Defense Ministry Portal.2009 International Monetary Fund. â€Å"The Republic of Belarus and the IMF. † Executive Board Consultation, 2009 One Secon dary Source: Global Security. â€Å"Ministry of Defense [of Belarus]. † In Defense Policy and Programs, 2008. (Globalsecurity. org) On Russia: Ministry of Defense. â€Å"Development. † In Military Insight. Published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, 2009 Ministry of Defense. â€Å"War on Terrorism. † In Military Insight. Published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, 2009 Ministry of Defense. â€Å"Global Cooperation† In Military Insight. Published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, 2009 Ministry of Defense.â€Å"Environmental Protection† In Military Insight. Published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, 2009 Medvedev, Dimitri. â€Å"Strengthening Dynamic Partnership with the Asia-Pacific Region. † In Articles of the President of Russia. (Kremlin. ru), 2008 Lavarov, Sergei. â€Å"Transcript of Remarks and Response to Questions by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at Press Conference on 2008 Foreign Policy Outcomes. † MFA, January 16, 2009 Ministry of Defense. â€Å"Deputy Minister of Defense for Financial and economic Issues† In Senior Officials. Published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, 2009

Dr. Abbott And Social Welfare History - 1128 Words

Abstract Many pioneers have been influential in advancing the field of social work and one of the early influencers was Edith Abbott. According to the Social Welfare History Project, Abbott was an early social reformer born in 1876 and lived until 1957. Dr. Abbott was known as a â€Å"Social Reformer, Author, Administrator and Educator†. (Sorenson, Abbott, Edith - Social Welfare History Project) This paper will explore the background which brought Dr. Abbott to the forefront of the early social work world by speaking about her ethnicity, family background, political affiliation, and reasons why they dedicated their lives to helping others. In addition, this paper will discuss the settings and subfields most associated with the individual,†¦show more content†¦Edith’s political affiliation was pro-suffrage for woman and republican. Her family were Quakers, as was her mother, Elizabeth. Elizabeth played a crucial role in women’s higher education and also, graduated from Rockford Seminary in 1868 (Women s Intellectual Contributions, n.d.). Edith’s father, Othman, was a soldier, lawyer and banker and perhaps more influentially the first lieutenant governor of the state of Nebraska. Early in Edith’s life, her father had financial troubles at his place of work, which caused the family to have to work for years to recoup their hard earned money (Women s Intellectual Contributions, n.d.). Early in her educational career, Edith’s parents enrolled her in Brownell Hall, where Edith graduated from in 1893 with top honors and as valedictorian. Upon graduation, Abbott taught high school in her hometown; this lead her to continue her own education and began taking classes to prepare for college. She went on to attend the University of Nebraska and graduated in 1901 and from there continued her education further by achieving her doctoral degree in economics from the University of Chicago in 1905 (Women s Intellectual Contributions, n.d .). According to The National Association of Social Workers website, Edith also studied at the London School of Economics. From there, she continued on to teach at Wellesley College until 1908,