UNIT 3 DISCUSSION BOARD Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

UNIT 3 DISCUSSION BOARD - Essay Example Many argue that doing investment on stock market exchange is a profitable business but only by organization that trade large volumes of securities such as banks, mutual funds, insurance companies, pension funds, college endowment funds, etc. can win. One must not finally close doors and make some consideration by taking risk-return evaluation. The relationship between risk and return is one of the essential concepts to understand when investing—and it is  unique for every investor. While some investors may be willing to withstand a higher level of market volatility, others prefer a more conservative approach.   What is crucial to understands is your risk profile and how  it translates into a disciplined approach to investing. Risk, generally equated with the potential of an investment to generate financial loss, is a point to consider when engaging investments. Return is the usual measure of performance. As investments that offer higher potential for total return generally carry a higher potential for risk, informed investors do not simply seek to maximize returns. Instead, they focus on risk-adjusted returns, that is, the potential  returns that correspond to the level of risk with which they are comfortable. Risk tolerance is highly individual, based on a mix of subjective traits and objective circumstances. Your personal risk tolerance can be influenced by current world events, your own investment experiences—even your inherited views on saving and investing. To help you make suitable investment decisions, it is important that you work with a financial advisor who understands your ability to tolerate risk as well as the factors that affect your decisions. A financial plan is a great starting point. Your financial advisor can work with you to create a ample plan that addresses your long-term goals, while keeping in mind your short-range

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION (700 words) Managing Groups and Teams Essay

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION (700 words) Managing Groups and Teams - Essay Example There was a feeling that some people in the group always benefit at the expense of others. Such sentiments had been gained after watching movies where in most cases those who did not put any effort benefited the most, while the hard working people got a small share of the reward. However, hard work, as groups is advantageous than working individually. This is because it is possible knowing much through the discussions forums. Group activities have made it possible for me to change the bad attitude towards group work. It was learned that working as groups can be sometimes motivational to members. The greatest lesson learned through the group work was that teamwork involves synchronizing aptitudes, attributes, and positions. The same sentiments are shared by Cardona and Wilkinson â€Å"If people use their aptitudes and position in an isolated way without taking other team members’ aptitude and positions into account, they are not working as a team. Rather, they are working on their own company† (Cardona and Wilkinson, 2006, p. 3). In the group, members were motivated by encouraging them to do the research and were given assistance in cases of difficulties. Gradually, each other’s weakness were learned and eventually, it was possible to work on the weak points hence making the weak group members strong. During the group work, various challenges were encountered. One of the challenges was that the group had not met before with the rest of the group members. This made the initial stages difficult. However, as time progressed, they understood each other’s weaknesses group. The group work became easy for them and even enjoyed participation. Additionally, there was the intellectual challenge, which involved understanding the behaviors and characteristics of group members. This mainly occurred during group discussions. It became evident that some members had a difficult time in settling for a good answer with other group members. Most notably, there was a

Encounter with God Essay Example for Free

Encounter with God Essay As I recall a moment in my life which I had experienced a liberating and transforming encounter with God, the first thing that came into my mind was my first confession to the priest back when I was in our first year recollection. I can still remember how nervous I am that time because I didn’t really know what to do inside the confession room. But then, before I entered the room, I gave myself a time to just relax and think conscientiously all the sins I have made against God, family, friends and my neighbors. That time, I felt so relieved of the fact that I have realized that I was once wrong. When it was my turn to go inside, the feeling of nervousness lowered down. It’s as if I have accepted and opened myself to what reality with God is – and that’s the act of confession. While confessing my sins to the priest, it seems like I am having my most honest conversation with Him. I can really tell that it was exactly the real me who’s talking to God. With that encounter, I was enlightened that God have transformed me to be the real me. I felt liberated from the barriers that tried to hide the essence of my existence. After that loving encounter with God, I have fully accepted what I really am – a thinking being capable of caring and hurting, but had always acknowledged change. I promised to Him not to do the same mistake twice – and be open to whatever life brings. That was the time when my view of life became clearer, that in however way God shows life to me, it’s always for my own good and for a significant reason and purpose. I can’t say now if I have really fulfilled my promises to Him, but one thing is for sure that I have always been carrying out all His goodness to me.

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity In Laws Empire, Dworkin has distinguished three legal conceptions: conventionalism, pragmatism and law as integrity  [1]  , by criticizing conventionalism and pragmatism, Dworkin concludes that law as integrity is the most plausible and defensible. However, criticism to Dworkins argument-law as Integritycan be seen in various academic works. In this essay, first and foremost, we will briefly discuss the basic arguments of Dworkins theory of law as integrity then we will go on to criticize Dworkins theory in light of relevant legal theories. Introduction of the Theory of Law as integrity Conventionalism Pragmatism In the theory of conventionalism, legal rights can only emerge from existing law, including precedents and legislation. Conventionalism also holds the view that judges must follow the law and should make decisions only based on existing statutes and more importantly, judges must respect what convention deems binding law.  [2]   According to the theory of pragmatism, assignments of legal rights and responsibilities must be consistent with past decisions. Moreover, the pragmatist theory holds the view that adjudication is not really constrained by the law. Hence, pragmatism argues that judges should decide what decision will, according to them, be best for the community as a whole.  [3]  This means that for reasons of strategy judges must sometimes act as if they are applying pre-existing legal rights.  [4]  In the meanwhile, in accordance with pragmatist theory, to some extent, the behaviour of a court in making decision of certain case is not constrained by the existing law. These two legal theories are highly criticized by Dworkin. As Dworkin points out that assumes that judges sometimes invent law, which means that they act in an unconstrained manner. Pragmatism also assumes that judges are hardly constrained when adjudicating cases. It thus cannot account for why judges are so concerned with precedents and statutes when they decide hard cases.  [5]   Dworkin then provides a third theory of law, which he believes not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. Law as Integrity The concept of Law as Integrity is a key to Dworkins Constructive Interpretation of legal practice.  [6]  According to Dworkin, judges should identify legal rights and obligations on the basis that all the rights and obligations are crated by the community as integrity, and all those rights and obligations express the communitys conception of justice and fairness. In accordance with Dworkin, the only way to understand legal practice seems to be thattaking the interpretative perspectives of the participant into consider in the practice. Dworkin claims that when judges (as well as lawyers) consider which way is the best to solve a legal issue, they should not simply identify exactly what positive law is applicable in a certain case, but taking an interpretative approach to law as social practice. Dworkin emphasizes that a solution to a certain case is always sought out through a matter of interpretative practice. Dworkins perspective here is quite against that of conventionalists, the conventionalists insist that in dealing with a certain case, the judge only should identify exactly what law is applicable. Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in the debate of a certain case, different opinions and arguments are raised by lawyers, and under this circumstance, the decision of what law is applicable in the case is usually based on what opinion the law amounts to in a particular matter rather than what conventions apply. Participants in such a debate thus do not attempt to link the facts of a case with the supposedly posited law applicable but rather interpret the law in light of a general normative justification or moral point expressed in it. A participant interpreting a social practice [i.e. the law], according to that view, proposes value for the practice by describing some scheme of interest or goals or principles the practice can be taken to serve or express or exemplify.  [7]   Dworkin argues that network of political structures and decisions of his community  [8]  must always be called on by a judge when the judge goes about adjudicating. For instance, legislation and case law which must be identified in a pre-interpretative stage Then in the following stages, the judge must always question himself whether his interpretation of this network could form part of a coherent theory justifying the network as a whole. No actual judge could compose of anything approaching a full interpretation of all of his communitys law at once. But an actual judge can () allow the scope of his interpretation to fan out from the cases immediately in point to cases in the same general area or department of law, and then still farther, so far as this seems promising.  [9]  In accordance with Dworkins arguments, the interpretation of law should not only fit into the legal system but also be the best normative justification of law as such, this means that not only must the i nterpretation of the judges be consistent with the law identified at the pre-interpretative stage, but also the law must be interpreted in a way which is the best in the participants mind. Moreover, according to Dworkins theory, both the judge and any other participant should adjust his own sense of of what the practice really requires so as better to serve the justification he accepts at the interpretative stage.  [10]   We notice that, in accordance with Dworkin, morality affects the whole process of adjudication of cases. By contrast, he dose not express the view that a certain case should be adjudicated and resolved on the basis of sole considerations of justice. Dworkin claims that the moral standards should be derived form the explicit and existing legal practice and contrary to positivists, Dworkin believes that moral principles that cohere with past legal practice are valid propositions of law as well-so much so that these principles can and should go beyond what legal conventions teach us the law is.  [11]   In Dworkins theory, there are two basic elements of law, one is a retrospective element, which he calls fit, and the other is a prospective element, which he calls justification.  [12]  Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in exercising the function of these two elements, judges are required to construct a theory of law which can both fit past legal decisions and makes the law as good as possible. In doing this, the judges are required to search out legal principles which have been previously mentioned in the historical and social characteristics of the legal system and then improve the law for the future by making it more coherent  [13]  . Hence, we can say that according to Dwokins theory, in dealing with a certain case, the judge should try to interpret the law in a way which promotes the coherence of the legal system as well as possible. In other words, it is to say that an interpretationwhich is the most coherent to legal systemis much better than an interpretation-which makes the legal system less coherent. This implies that when interpretation is concerned, there exists a certain tension between what is presented by the existing positivist material and what is the best way to interpret such material from a moral point of view.  [14]   From the view of Dworkin, a judge is like an author in writing a novel, in that case a new author is bound by what another author has written in a previous chapter, but the new author will subsequently attempt to continue the novel in the best possible way.  [15]  A judge should view his or her role in a chain in law, he or she is not purely independent, but is indeed independent to some extent,He knows that other judges have decided cases that, although not exactly like his case, deal with related problems; he must think of their decisions as part of a long story he must interpret and then continue, according to his own judgement of how to make the developing story as good as it can be.  [16]  In other words, Dworkin holds the view that law is not arbitrary but rather the expression of an underlying attempt at forming and clarifying a coherent legal consciousness of society.  [17]  Hence, in interpreting certain legal text, a judge is not completely free. The judge is no t allowed to inject any personal morality into the interpretation of the legal document. More essentially, a judge is required to interpret with the purpose of establishing coherence based on the integrity of existing law. Furthermore, decision making by the judge will depend, that is, not only on his beliefs about which of these principles is superior as a matter of abstract justice but also about which should be followed, as a matter of political fairness, in a community whose members have the moral convictions his fellow citizens have.  [18]  Dworkin also explains this in more general terms: There are two possibilities. Someone might say that interpretation of a social practice means discovering the purposes or intentions of the other social participants in the practice (). Or that it means discovering the purposes of the community that houses the practice, conceived as itself having some form of mental life or group consciousness. The first of these suggestions seems more attractive because less mysterious. But it is ruled out by the internal structure of an argumentative social practice, because it is a feature of such practices that an interpretive claim is not just a claim about what other i nterpreters think. () [A] social practice creates and assumes a crucial distinction between interpreting the acts and thoughts of participants one by one, in that way, and interpreting that practice itself, that is, interpreting what they do collectively. It assumes that distinction because the claims and arguments participants make, licensed and encouraged by the practice, are about what it means, not what they mean. () [An interpreter must therefore] join the practice he proposes to understand ().  [19]   Criticism of Dworkins Legal Theory Moral to full extent According to Michael Sandel  [20]  , Dwokins legal theory begins with the principles of freedom and equality that justify the institutions of democracy and law. However, as Stephen Guise points out that the claim that democracy is just and that law is part of democracy is a claim about a moral ideal.  [21]  If we go further, that is to say, in a moral level, the world without democracy is better than a democratic world. Since in a democratic world, laws are enacted and enforced but laws may be substantively unjust. Stephen Guest criticizes that The theory of Dworkins is moral to the full extent. Interpretation is therefore is not constrained by facts even though it makes use of facts. It does not follow that his theory is subjective, because his moral views like all moral views are subject to revision, correction and, in short, reason.  [22]  Stephen Breyer says that constitutional standards keep subjective judicial decision-making in check.  [23]  In my mind, it is right, but not purely right, that is because, this statement implies that there exists some external checking fact on these judicial subjective judgments, more importantly, this statement demonstrates that judges should not formulate applicable constitutional standards. In the theory of Dworkins, interpretation is something close to the end-product of moralizing with others who are largely in agreement and who endorse true propositions of modality.  [24]  This means that the origin of Dworkins legal theory is moral pro posals concerning equality and freedom. Dworkin cannot explain the extraordinary rigidity of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the way that entrenched provisions of the Constitution conservatively constrain judges by imposing the dead hand of the past  [25]  . In Dworkins perspective, there is no categorical distinction between distinction history and substance, although there is an argument of fit, as we mentioned before, this is merely another form of argument of substance. So in Dworkins theory, there is no way of identifying historical facts about the Constitution distinct from its moral substance. The only arguments are moral arguments and as we mentioned in the first part, Dworkin expresses the idea that entrenched positions can be interpreted morally, in terms, for example, of the protection of democratic decision-making. So law is a form of moralizing that is also an integral part of democracy. If we genuinely believe in equality of respect, we naturally end up with endorsing representative democracy, which means legislative activity through delegated agency. It is not just that the legislature represents my view through legislation but, merely in its existence, it expresses my conviction that I respect others equally. Since I do, I must allow that their convictions count, too, and so I must abide by whatever the procedural outcome is of this respect I owe to others. Moral convictions and objectivity. There is a conflict in Dworkins theory, on one hand, Dworkin emphasizes objectivity in decision making, on the other hand, Dworkin put decision onto a moral basis. As Duncan Kennedy  [26]  claims that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the judges should not choose the interpretation that applies their own moral and political convictions. I personally dont see what else they could applyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Furthermore, as Waldron points out that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦These are convictions, not whims, and even where there is nothing else but ones own convictions to follow, no-one thinks that it means those convictions are rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [27]  So it is rare or even impossible that a judge will not take personal moral convictions into the process of adjudication or interpretation. Unclear about Justice By holding the same view with Waldron, Smith  [28]  supposes that Dworkins idea or justice is not clear since Dworkin has argued that justice depends on recognizable principles. Furthermore, Smith questions that why should a principle of justice have to be recognizable?  [29]  For principles of justice will surely gain moral recognition if they do because they have force independent of recognition. Someone has to do the recognizing first. How to achieve ideal integrity? Susan Hurley  [30]  defends Dworkins perspective against a claim by Kenneth Kress  [31]  that Dworkin cannot provide a coherent consideration of law in circumstances where there is an intervening judicial decision between a set of facts that ground litigation and the litigation itself. Does the judge decide on the basis of the previous law, or the intervening law? Hurley concludes that if the intervening decision is right, then there is coherence, therefore, there is no problem; if it is wrong, it is a mistake, and need not count. A question may be raised here thatalthough it may have created further rights, say, to reasonable expectations being met, which will cohere with integrity? Moreover, Hurley  [32]  sees the problem in terms of overall moral coherence untrammeled by worries about descriptive facts'. So Hurley usefully broadens the picture by pointing out that coherence is determined as much by hypothetical facts, those that test the limits of principle (and which judges often use), as they are by judicial decisions. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, in Dworkins legal theory, when dealing with a particular case, a judge should interpret and apply law in light of the whole legal system, and make interpretation which is consistent with the integrity of the legal system. However, is this really applicable in practice? In accordance with Waldron  [33]  , it is a challenge to Dworkins descriptive optimism that the facts of the American legal system could make it impossible to give an overall account of American law that would remain true to integrity. But as Stephen argues that there is no such tension between facts and moral optimism as he appears to envisage. The facts are either incorporated into the argument that makes for integrity or they are discounted. There is the possibility that the American legal system has become so dysfunctional that no moral case for integrity can be made for it, but that seemingly remote possibility would not be an embarrassment for Dworkins theory.  [34]  Waldrons comments seem to imply that there are facts that determine law independently of interpretation. And so it has the general form of: Imagine a legal system where integrity might not apply; what then? Dworkins reply can only be and it is his reply that We cannot be sure, before we look, because noth ing in his legal theory requires that all legal systems display integrity  [35]  . Finally, Dworkin must allow that, by making best sense of an existing legal practice, we may still conclude that the practice failed the ideal. Take the fugitive slave Acts for instance.  [36]  What should the judges do when they are legally required to send captured slaves back to the South? In order to maintain the integrity of legal system, the judges should send those slaves back but to achieve the goal of justice, judges should set the slaves free. Hence, the outcome of the judgment represents a serious conflict between integrity and jusitice. A positivist will deal this case by distinguishing legal justice and real justice, but in Dworkins theory, this is criticized. According to Dworkins theory, the relevant ideal here is the ideal of integrity; it is through bad legal argument that one fails to meet that ideal, and it is bad because it hasnt made maximal use, in the circumstances of actual practice, what that actual ideal of integrity requires. So interpretivism produces an ideal, but it is not the outcome that would be the best in all possible worlds, which is how we ordinarily think of ideals. But maybe this doesnt particularly matter. We have the ideal solution in integrity and this differs from the ideal solution in justice. At times both fairness and efficiency require following precedents, but integrity is different, although it will serve both those values as well. Nevertheless, the ideal of integrity appears to be constrained by existing practices in a way that the ideal of justice is not. Or, by its nature, it seems, interpretation is only possible within the existing world, which suggests it is not an ideal at all. A cruder way of putting this point is that making the best sense of existing legal practices is no more than adequately characterizing equity deficits, that is to say characterizing how far these practices fall short of the ideal. If the Legal System is Wicked Obviously, a consequence of Dworkins views is that the legal system itself may not contain too many mistakes. That is because in Dworkins theory, the normative dimension feeds on the law itself, and more importantly, Dworkin emphasizes the relationship between local politics and law. As a matter of fact, Dworkins theory is constructed on the presupposition that the integrity of the legal community is in a large measure reflected in its law. So if the justification of law is to flow from societys political decisions (in the form of law), it follows that these decisions must also be justifiable as such; but this is obviously not always the case, as the examples of Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany show. Why would we make racism the best it can be? Dworkins argument here is circular in that it presupposes, in his case, the existence of a liberal democracy  [37]   We also note that Dworkins theory does not require abandoning the history or anthropology of wicked legal systems. As we mentioned before, Dworkin holds the view that law should be treated as conventional, because that is a theory that clearly has a moral point  [38]  . There is no need to talk in terms of the Hart-Dworkin debate'  [39]  Stephen claims, especially as they barely debated these questions. The debate should instead concern the theoretical question of the identification of the conditions according to which propositions of law are true. That debate is important because it concerns, amongst other matters, our moral obligation to conform to law. And so while it is right that we move away from the Hart- Dworkin debate, it would be wrong to move from questions concerning the identification of law, because these are at the core of our moral obligations to the community.  [40]  It is true that there will be occasions when the law requires something the moral force o f which grates with a judges personal convictions. There will therefore be occasions when it may be morally right for the judge to lie where justice trumps integrity. But I dont see how any of this affects Dworkins theory unless, yet again, one supposes that some descriptive fact defeats the moral judgment. Both the systems of apartheid and Nazism contained elements of good that could be put to use through integrity. Since these systems regularly enforced equality in some spheres, and morality says that the racial classifications are wrong, then the laws promoting the immoral policies can be made out as dysfunctional, perverted, or even mistaken and, so, not creative of moral obligations. However, if there is no articulated and public structure that, as Dyzenhaus says, citizens have been encouraged to obey and treat as a source of rights and duties,  [41]  it is difficult to see what is left. Where there is such a semblance of law, of an articulate public structure of rights an d duties, citizens acquiescence forms something of a legitimizing base, which, incidentally, Fuller called the external morality of law.  [42]   What will be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself It is not very clear in what respect an analogy can be drawn between law and literature in that legal texts constrain judges in their interpretative activities. Some argue that legal texts themselves are texts as well and thus also must be interpreted. In other words, what is to be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself. There is no such thing as a text out there  [43]  , and meaning is derived from interpretation. From that point of view, a previous legal text as such does not put any constraints on its interpretation but rather on the shared understandings that live within the interpreting community. Conclusion As we have discussed throughout this essay, although Dworkin tried to provide a theory of law, which, at least in his opinion, not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. It seems that his work is unsuccessful. Dworkin tried to avoid the shortcomings of both conventionalist theory and pragmatist theory. In the theory of law as integrity, when comes to interpretation of law, on one hand, Dworkin expects to make the judge constrained by law by arguing that the interpretation of law should follow the step of former decisions and be coherent with the existing legal system, on the other hand, Dworkin tries to make the judge creative, and emphasizes on the moral issues in the process of interpretation. Moreover, Dworkin connects law with other social elements, such as politics and local community, and enlarged the conception of integrity. In conclusion, we see Dworkins theory of law as integrity is good in a moral level but bad in a legal level. As we have discussed in this essay, Dworkins theory of law as integrity lacks applicability, if a theory only sounds good but could not be applied in practice, this theory is not a good one. In addition, as a legal theory, Dworkins theory of law as integrity fails in the following essential aspects. Firstly, this theory made its sole concept integrity conflicted with the concept of justice under certain circumstances. Secondly, when Dworkin makes law closely related to politics, actually, more problems have been raised rather than solved.

Photographers of the Old West :: Research History Photography Papers

Photographers of the Old West In a society that is focused on visual stimuli, it isn't uncommon to see a person taking a picture with a camera or making a "movie" with their camcorder. But, in the 1840s and 1850s, life just wasn't like that. If someone said they could make a picture of a mining town or of the route to the West without a pencil or paint people would have laughed at them. Laughing would have been appropriate because photography didn't come into being until 1839. James Horan reveals in his book, Mathew Brady: Historian with a Camera, that it wasn't even called photography then, it was called the "new art" (5). There were very few people who knew what it was to take a picture, or make a picture with light. The only pictures that were around at that time were those that were drawn, painted, or printed from lithographs or etchings. Newspapers didn't have real live pictures that showed the actual things that were written about. The population of America as it was in 1800 didn't know what the "West" look ed like. According to Eugene Ostroff, sketches and paintings were the only illustrations of the West before photography (9). Ostroff tells us that these weren't usually accepted if the painter had taken artistic license (9). All Americans knew were the stories of the people who returned because it was too difficult to live there or the letters from friends and family telling the horrors they saw. So, with the invention of photography, especially the ability to "fix" the image onto the paper or metal plate had a major effect on the expansion to the West because the pictures that were taken showed how the West really was beautiful. Unfortunately, it was a while before the public was able to see the pictures that were taken by the photographers of the West because 1839 was only the very beginning of photography as a profession and a hobby. The first type of using light to make a picture was the daguerreotype. Both Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre and Nicephore Niepce, who passed away before the public was introduced to the daguerreotype, founded this type of picture taking. However, before this Louis Daguerre made a "theater without actors." Beaumont Newhall explains that this was an illusion made by extraordinary lighting effects that made the 45 Â ½ foot by 71 Â ½ foot pictures appear to change as one looked at them (2).

Correlations between Biology and Male Homosexuality Essay -- Science S

Correlations Between Biology and Male Homosexuality Homosexuality, one of the many different sexual behaviors exhibited by humankind, has been rejected, persecuted, and denied. Are the studies that attempt to find causation moral? Is this search for the "why" of homosexuality a continuation of the heterosexist assumption that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality abnormal? Are assumptions being made that homosexuality is a disease and should therefore be treated medically? Is the research currently being done heterosexist? Studies that are being performed currently and those done in the recent past have shown that there are strong connections between male homosexuality and biology. By presenting the scientifically significant studies that I have come across, I intend to reduce the ignorance surrounding homosexuality and the behaviors often found with it, and to show some of the correlations between biology and male homosexuality. Throughout my research of homosexuality, I wavered back and forth, debating the morality of this search for a cause. It seemed that finding a cause for homosexuality was somewhat akin to finding the cause for a disease. Unhappy with the association of homosexuality with abnormality, I wondered why scientists were allowed to place homosexuals at such a level. On one hand, with biology backing up gay men and women, the fight for equality and basic human rights could be won more quickly. Although science and society have progressed significantly since the days of Nazi Germany, when homosexuality was thought to come about through "seduction and mind-traps," critics of the current scientific curiosity with homosexuality consider every study and experiment an effort to strengthen the argument tha... ...ce of linkage to micro satellite markers on the X-Chromosome in a Canadian study," poster presentation at the International Academy of Sex Research, Provincetown, MA, 1995 Slimp, J. C., B.L. Hart, and R.W. Goy, "Heterosexual, autosexual and social behavior among adult male rhesus monkeys with medial preoptic-anterior hypothalamic lesions," Brain Research 142:105-122 (1978). Soulairac, A. and M. L. Soulairac, "Effets de là ©sions hypothalamiques sur le comportement sexuel et le tractus gà ©nital du rat male," Annales d'Endocrinologie (Paris) 17:731-745 (1956). Stein, Edward. The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Whitman, F.L., M. Diamond, and J. Marin, "Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets," Archives of Sexual Behavior 22:187-206 (1993).

Manifestations of Truth in How to Tell a War Story by Tim O’ Brien Essay

How to Tell a War Story by Tim O’ Brien has taken into account various thematic expression and he uses an unusual style to narrate these thematic expression. It a balance-mix of story and reflective essay. O ‘Brien major concern remain the reality of truth. He illustrates various manifestations of truth and manifests that imagination is the major tool to locate the truth. In addition to that he develops a criterion for narrating a war story. â€Å"O’Brien shares the criteria with which the writer or teller and the reader or listener must be concerned by giving an extended definition of what a war story is or is not. The chapter â€Å"How to Tell a True War Story† focuses most extensively on the features that might be found in a â€Å"true† war tale. â€Å"(Calloway, 1995) So story is multifaceted and its narrative technique is advanced as well unique. Tim O’ Brien has critically evaluated the criterion for writing a true war story. O’Brien demonstrates that memory and reminiscence are transient in nature and one can tell a story purely based on his memory. Memory is always prone to mental faculty of creating fiction. Sometime the character or the narrator admits the elements of fictionality in a true war story but mostly it goes unnoticed and unobserved. Same is the case with How to Tell a War Story as Mitchell Sanders admits to Tim O Brien (the protagonist) that although most of his tale is based on fact but there are elements of fiction. Hew says, â€Å"’Last night, man,'† Sanders states, â€Å"‘I had to make up a few things . . . The glee club. There wasn’t any glee club . . . No opera,'† either (O’ Brien, 1998). â€Å"‘But,'† he adds, â€Å"‘it’s still true'† (O’ Brien, 1998). This is not distortion of truth but it is the limited nature of memory to recall things in proper order with minute details that urges human faculties to invent certain details. Furthermore, plain truth is not interesting enough to captivate the attention of the reader and amuse. In a Vietnam War story there can be pathos and miseries, deaths and destruction, but there is nothing pure to tell in the form of a story. O Brien himself explain this; â€Å"I think exercising the imagination is the main of finding the truth†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Naparsteck, 1991, p. 10) So memories are true and well as invention simultaneously. In â€Å"Things They Carried†, collection short stories from which this story was taken, O’ Brien he acts as the narrator. So readers suppose that he himself was veteran of the war and observed everything on his own but his are not the first hand account of these tales. They are told by various veterans of wars and were later crafted by O’Brien. So both veterans and the writers has invented certain situations and mingled it with the real story. O’Brien says that it is not unethical or wrong to develop a story in this way. He says, â€Å"â€Å"You’d feel cheated if it never happened. †(O’ Brien). A story is developed on its own and follows a natural pattern. In this way, O’Brien implies that truth distorts when it passes through the mental processes. Various pre-conceived notions, past experiences, prejudices and men’s inventive powers cast its own impression on it. But it is natural phenomenon. O’Brien explains this in the story; In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen. What seems to happen becomes its own happening and has to be told that way. The angles of vision are skewed. When a booby trap explodes, you close your eyes and duck and float outside yourself. When a guy dies, like Lemon, you look away and then look back for a moment and then look away again. The pictures get jumbled; you tend to miss a lot. And then afterward, when you go to tell about it, there is always that surreal seemingness, which makes the story seem untrue, but which in fact represents the hard and exact truth as it seemed. (O’Brien, 1998) Readers accept this balance mix-up of reality and invention but O’Brien, however, does not allow his readers to take these things for granted and inquires the whole idea of memoirs, recollections, and the short capability of memory to communicate the reality with accuracy. As far as the narrative structure is concerned, O’Brien himself calls it a mix of essay and fiction. In an interview to Naparsteck (1991) he says that, â€Å"In a way, it’s part essay and a part fiction but in a way it’s neither†¦To me, it has singleness or unity to it. Rather than part things this and part things that, it’s all those things together. †(p. 9) This manifests his idea of truth as a whole. He does not differentiate genuine reality from perceived reality and considers them conflation of each other and they as whole constitute the truth. Unquestionably, truth and fabrication is another theme that Tim O Brien takes into consideration in the story. He is of the view that in narrating a war story, untruth is not conflicting with truth. They are the facets of a single reality. One is real and other is inventive but both are genuine. During the war, truth is unclear and mostly uncertain. It takes varies semblances band is manifested in various contradictory forms. So both true and inventive part of the story seems contradictory but in reality, they are same and equivalent. This paradoxical manifestation of truth is symbolized by the death Curt Lemon. O’Brien as narrator is familiar with the situation in which Curt was killed. He was shot dead by a 105mm round while â€Å"he was playing catch with Rat Kiley†. But as O’Brien recollect this in his mind; he perceives that Curt was killed by daylight. This narration is different from the first one. But none is untrue. 105 round was tool but sunlight also played a major role in his death. Sunlight is also chief cause thus. In this way, O’Brien differentiates between the reality that took place and the reality that appears to take place. No account is untrue but both a different manifestation of same reality i. e. one is real and other is perceived as real. Tim Obrien does not use proper literary devices to convey this dichotomy like Golding does in â€Å"Lord of The Flies† where he use symbol of fire and convey its paradoxical nature. Conventionally, fire refers to destruction and damage but Golding uses it as a rescue symbol when boys trapped in an island use fire to get attention of the passing by ship and in the last, they are saved by the aero- plane that noticed the fire signaling rescue. But mostly, it is not possible to attach two opposite meaning to a single word as beautifully done by Golding in the novel. O’ Brien attempts the same. For example, he says, â€Å"it is safe to say that in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true,† he generate a contradiction but it is not a single word or a symbols that he utilizes to communicate the paradox. It is the whole context that helps him make this statement. Stephen Kaplan sums up this thematic expression of reality in his book; Understanding Tim O’Brien. He says, â€Å"[O’Brien] completely destroys the fine line dividing fact from fiction and tries to show †¦ that fiction (or the imagined world) can often be truer, especially in the case of Vietnam, than fact. O’ Bren plays with truth in How to Tell a War Story and sometimes fabricates it. The chief purpose is to highlight the paradox of truth and to demonstrate its various facets and manifestations. He leaves it to the readers to discern between genuine truth and perceived truth. The writer’s use of a narrator Tim O’ Brien in this collection of short stories is at the same time appealing as well as disturbing. The confusion deepens when it told by the author that the narrator is a middle aged man telling the stories about the Vietnam War. The use of a narrator is interesting as it forces the readers to think that the story is basically rooted in some real life experiences. It also helps in joining together the disjointed elements in the tales. This tool also helps the writer to play and employ some untruths and marvelous things without suffering from the fear of being questioned for their authenticity. The readers suffer from the problem that is the narrator is just playing the role of a mouth piece for the writer or is he an independent character. However, by using this device the writer is able to convey the message to the readers that what is discussed in the story as truth is somewhat similar to what actually happened during the war. If the reader accepts that the narrator is reliable and he is telling the truth than he faced a dilemma. As in the beginning of the stories the narrator tells that he is a real person and going to tell real stories and in the end he tells them that everything that he has just told is just falsehood. The author might be using this illusion to convey the readers a way in which a war story should be told and the basic truths that these war stories carries. He might also be trying to make a point that the story is basically true and logical though it may not have actually happened in the Vietnam War. The construction of this collection of stories is not following the traditional way of telling the stories. There are stories within a story that are linked very beautifully together in a novel way. Each story is basically an endeavor, on the part of narrator, to make a point clear. In order to explain or discuss a thought or experience the narrator start telling another story. These stories, are however, not linked in the traditional way. On finishing the book the reader is made to realize the truth as an organic whole, in a strange way, and not in the ordinary way as is the truth in conveyed to them. In this style of story telling the writer is not bound to follow the chronological flow of time. He is free to roam about according to his will. He can discus the realities and the sequence of the happening of events according to how he deems it right and not by the traditional way of doing it. The writer is basically of the view that the ‘war stories’ need to present the ‘true illustration’ and it need not to indulge in ‘analysis’ so it is important that the short stories should remain true to the reality and the long story or the parent-story need not to be something actually happened in reality. Rosemary Kings explain this phenomenon in this way; O’Brien’s word play in the title hinges on the definition of â€Å"true,† a word he uses alternately throughout the story to mean either factually accurate, or something higher and nobler. He does this through three embedded narratives: Mitchell Sanders’s narration of Curt Lemon’s death; the narrator’s description of hearing Sanders’s story; and Tim O’Brien’s commentary on how to tell a true war story. (n1) Each narrator claims his story is an authentic retelling of events as they occurred in Vietnam, asserting the historicity of their narratives. (King, 1999) The structure of the book is such that the chapters and the short stories are basically there to help the readers understand the real story, the real and the tangible truth. These are basically the ‘things’ carried by the parent story. The comments of the narrator helps the reader understand the organic wholeness of the story just as the chapters in the long story are connected together by the connecting views and ideas of the author thrown here and there in the long story. Rosemary King also highlights the importance of title of the story; â€Å"O’Brien’s title delivers punch not only through the conflated definition of true but also through the distinction of what makes a war story â€Å"true. † He underscores the importance of manipulating what actually happened to get at the essence of truth. † Above-mentioned discussion and supported arguments and evidence clearly manifest that O’Brien has successfully asserted that truth has paradoxical nature and it can be conveyed as a whole i. e. a balance mix- of what happened and what seems to happen. In reality this pradox dissolved in a complete whole. He further illustrated that human mental processes modifies the objective reality. His own description of reality from the subjective point of view of the narrators in the story is a skillful representation of this phenomenon. Thus his story is a successful example of metafiction.