Self defense Essay Example for Free

Self defense Essay Representing a group that is fighting in self defense, for preservation of our species, and all species of life on earth is usually the main goal of an eco-terrorist. Eco-terrorists operate through self-sufficient units, and are unconstrained by geographic boundaries. They are very difficult to permeate and stop. Unlike racial hate groups with membership requirements, an eco-terror activist can become a member of the eco-terror movement simply by carrying out an illegal action on its behalf. In recent years, an increasing amount of eco-terrorism activity has been carried out, and the amplified nature of these attacks suggests that the actions and beliefs behind the groups are not coming to an end anytime soon. II. Definition Eco-terrorism has numerous definitions. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, eco-terrorism is defined as the acts of terrorism, violence or sabotage committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes against persons or their property. The term itself can refer to the use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property for environmental and political reasons. Often of a symbolic nature, acts of eco-terrorism are usually committed by individuals who believe that the exploitation of natural resources and vandalism of the environment are becoming so severe that action outside of conventional legal and environmental channels is required. By the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it is defined as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature (Jarboe, 2002). The FBI has credited to eco-terrorism, $200 million in property damage from 2003 to 2008, and a majority of states within the USA have introduced laws aimed at eco-terrorism. Ultimately, any definition is possible but the commonly held definition of terrorism is that its goal is ideological, not financial. III. History The term eco-terrorism is believed to have been coined by Ron Arnold, the executive director of the center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. He first used the term in a 1983 article in Reason Magazine. In 1991, Ron Arnold told Outside magazine that he chose the term eco-terrorism because it was ambiguous and fit neatly in newspaper headlines. He defended the word by stating Facts dont really matter. In politics, perception is reality (Berlau, 2007). † According to Mr. Arnold he wanted to destroy environmentalists by taking away their money and their members. He spoke of his efforts as We (CDFE), Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, created a sector of public opinion that didnt used to exist. No one was aware that environmentalism was a problem until we came along (Burke, 1993). Ron Arnold was trying to eliminate eco-terrorists and destroy environmentalism once and for all for two main reasons. First, for him personally, it was financially rewarding to oppose environmentalism and second it was a political gain on his part with the government and politicians. Arnold has been very busy writing a series of highly critical books on the environmental movement. He has always been aimed at mobilising those receptive to his argumentative language and comparitive policy debates as being a war. Arnold once stated We are sick to death of environmentalism and so we will destroy it. We will not allow our right to own property and use natures resources for the benefit of mankind to be stripped from us by a bunch of eco-facists (Burke, 11993). † To understand Ron Arnold’s term of eco-terrorism, one must look back into history as to how the activities of threats began. The eco-terrorist movement was said to begun in the 1960’s, when a group of animal rights advocates in England formed the Hunt Saboteurs Association. This assembly disrupted fox hunts by blocking roads, protesting the hunters by using bullhorns, and confusing the hunting dogs trail by spraying chemicals that eliminated the scent left by foxes. After effectively ending a number of traditional hunting events across England, the members of the Hunt Saboteurs Association decided more militant action was needed and in 1972, they became the Band of Mercy, a much more violent activist group that damaged property and held frequent meetings to attract new advocates. The ideas of violent activities to ensure the activist’s points were made brought about the forming of many more organizations that even exist today. IV. Organizations There are many organizations alive in today’s societies, which are fighting for environmental causes and animal rights. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is one of the most extreme animal rights groups in the United States. Their purpose is to inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals. They oppose any form of animal experimentation and perceived mistreatment towards animals. Their principle activities include freeing animals from places of abuse such as labs, and zoos, and then committing property destruction. The origins of ALF trace back to the Hunt Saboteurs Association that was formed in England in the 1960’s, which later became the Band of Mercy. ALF claimed full responsibility for a 1987 arson at a University of California-Davis veterinary laboratory, which ended up causing $3. 5 million worth of damages. Their next major claim was at a 1992 firebombing at an animal research laboratory at Michigan State University. The Department of Justice and Agriculture stated that ALF was the most significant â€Å"radical fringe† animal rights group and reported more than 313 incidents of break-ins, vandalisms, arson and thefts committed in the name of animal rights between 1979 and 1993 (Anti-Defamation League, 2005). In 1975, Peter Singer who was an Australian philosopher; wrote the most influential book titled â€Å"Animal Liberation†. It was one of the first books to cover animal rights and it gave great motivation to activist groups such as ALF, to become more active and more violent in their protest activities. In his book, Singer says that any living being that has a face, must have a soul and is able to feel pain and sadness (Singer, 1975). Although he did not specifically advocate violence, Singer did suggest that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Another well known organization is Earth First, which came about in the 1980’s. This group engaged in acts of civil disobedience by using the method of tree spiking. This is the practice of hammering nails and large metal spikes into the trunks of the trees, to prevent it from being cut down. When the loggers’ saws hit the spikes they would be damaged upon repair, forcing the workers to stop, which ultimately slowed the rate of logging, and in return cost the logging companies time and money. They insisted no harm to the loggers but the spikes were known to severely injure the loggers, and they were forced to abandon their tactics of tree spiking which resulted in loss of popular support. Earth First brought about a more radical organization of themselves and in 1992 they renamed the organization as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). ELF sees its own actions as a matter of self defense, protecting the earth from the greedy individuals and corporations that it views as destroying the environment’s ability to sustain life. They view politicians as ineffective and believe that if something is to be done, they must do it themselves. ELF claimed sole responsibility for an attack in the United States in 1997 when activists burned down a Bureau of Land Management horse corral in Oregon. The group also made national headlines when it claimed responsibility for the arson of a ski resort in Vali, Colorado, which caused $12 million in damages. Their reasoning for this attack was that putting profits ahead of Colorado’s wildlife will not be tolerated, and that the greedy corporation continued to trespass into the wild and un-roaded areas. ELF views the ongoing battle with urban and leisure building, as a wasteful and unnecessary infringement on natural habitats. Car dealerships and sport utility vehicles are also a common target for members of the ELF organization. They have been known to set fire to, blow up, and spray paint such vehicles and facilities. The organization defends their actions with the view that they are eliminating the profit motive from killing the natural environment. Ultimately since 1996, ELF’s campaign of property destruction has cost some $43 million, and has yet to result in permanent closure of a business or facility. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has formed joint terrorism task forces with police around the country to investigate ELF actions and potentially stop them altogether. Another well known organization is Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). This organization came about in 1998 when a British television broadcast, BBC, did a graphic documentary alleging mistreatment of animals by Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British-based research firm. In response to this documentary, outraged animal rights activists began to pressure financial institutions associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences to drop their support of the company and thereby force them to discontinue animal use in their tests. This campaign named themselves Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. SHAC quickly became a transatlantic cause among radical animal rights activists, with chapters in Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the United States. Today, the group has claimed responsibility for several bombings and numerous acts of vandalism as well as harassment in both the United States and Europe. The SHAC uses the internet more effectively than any other eco-terrorist group. On their website, they provide activities with specific targets that include information such as the names and addresses, spouse’s names and even social security numbers of its intended targets, whether it is an individualized person or a company/organization. Once the information is relayed electronically, SHAC activists protest outside the homes of the targeted employees. A new nonprofit organization recently formed in Portland, Oregon, called Stop Eco-Violence (SEV), was made to demonstrate the harm of eco-terrorism to communities where it occurs. SEV was founded on the core principle that violence is no solution to addressing environmental and social issues. Stop Eco-Violence hopes to expose the terrorists and their founders, as well as assist law enforcement agencies, by serving as a public clearinghouse to track eco-terrorism cases. Despite the few successes by law enforcement in capturing those responsible for eco-terror related crimes, most of the acts made by these organizations remain unsolved. Eco-terrorist groups remain extremely difficult to identify and infiltrate, and it is very unlikely that the rapidly growing movement of eco-terrorism will disappear soon. However, I feel that these organizations should be allowed their activist movements as long as their position of the acts themselves include such attitudes that the kind, compassionate, caring of other people is included.

The Physics of Human Strength :: physics sport sports weight lifting strong

Welcome to the Physics of Strength What make a person strong? According to Frederick Hatfield, Ph.D. and former world record holder in the Squat, there are 38 factors affecting strength. I have put them here for you to read quickly, but the original article can be found on www.drsquat.com. 1. Muscle Fiber Arrangement 2. Musculoskeletal Leverage 3. Tissue Leverage 4. Freedom of Movement Between Fibers 5. Tissue Viscoelasticity 6. Intramuscular/intracellular friction 7. Ratio of Fiber Types 8. Range of Motion 9. Freedom From Injury 10. Connective Tissue Structure 11. Stretch Reflex 12. The Feedback Loop 13. Endocrine System Functions (hormones) 14. Extent of hyperplasia (cell splitting) or fiber fusion 15. Extent of myofibrillarization 16. Motor Unit Recruitment 17. Energy transfer systems' efficiency 18. Extensiveness of capillarization 19. Mitochondrial growth and proliferation 20. Stroke volume of the left ventricle 21. Ejection fraction of the left ventricle 22. Pulmonary (ventilatory) capacity 23. Efficiency of gas exchange in the lungs 24. Heart rate 25. Max VO2 uptake 26. Freedom from disease 27. Arousal Level ("psych") 28. Ability to concentrate 29. Incentive 30. Social learning 31. Coordination 32. "Spiritual" factors 33. The "placebo" effect 34. Equipment 35. Environment 36. Effect of gravity 37. Opposing and assisting forces This pretty much covers everything. As you can see, it takes a culmination of physical, natural, mental, spiritual, and psychological factors to be strong. It also takes time. The laws of physics play a huge role in what it means to be strong. On this site we will focus especially on the last two, the effect of gravity and forces. The physical concepts that will be used in this site include Newton's laws (of course), gravity, work, power, velocity and acceleration, static equilibrium, and conservation of mechanical energy. All concepts and useful equations will be explained as they are used. What is the Squat? The parallel squat (shown to the left) is the most important lift in all of sports and the most efficient exercise in building strength. It incorporates back and leg strength, stability, and coordination. Almost every athlete can benefit from doing squats. How do you do Squats? Squats are done with a weighted bar on your shoulders, in the natural groove between the muscles, with your feet a little farther than shoulder-width apart.

“How does Shakespeare present Macbeth as a disturbed character in Act 1 of Macbeth?” Essay

â€Å"How does Shakespeare present Macbeth as a disturbed character in Act 1 of Macbeth?† William Shakespeare wrote the play â€Å"Macbeth† in 1606. It, as the title suggests, follows the story of a Scotsman named Macbeth and how, after the prophecy of three witches, sees his status evolve from a general in the Kings army to becoming the King himself. However the main theme that Shakespeare introduces in this play is the lengths man will go to fulfil ambition and the treacherous consequences that come with it. Not only do we see Macbeth’s status evolve but also his personality within. With each scene we see Macbeth succumb to the pressures of achieving power and how this affects his character as well. Act 1 of â€Å"Macbeth† truly, from the beginning, shows us a clear development of Macbeth’s disturbed personality not only through language but the context behind this tragedy. In Act 1 Scene 2 we are not introduced to Macbeth, but not directly. Shakespeare describes him as a ruthless, violent but brave soldier through the mouths of admirers. When the Thane Ross and a Captain describe Macbeth’s â€Å"brave† performance during a victory over Norway, we are immediately acquainted to the respect that he is held in. The Captain describes him in a very positive manner, â€Å"For brave Macbeth – well he deserves that name† is a quote that clearly emphasises the admiration that fellow soldiers have for Macbeth. The use of the word â€Å"deserves† shows us that he has earned the right to be commended. However another interpretation of Macbeth’s heroics is possibly his ruthlessness. During his distinguishing, Macbeth is also described as quite a violent person. His fierceness is made apparent when the Captain conveys a very vivid explanation of how Macbeth killed a Norwegian, â€Å"Till he unseam’d him from the nave to the chaps†. This description is very daunting to think about and Shakespeare leaves this image implanted in the heads of the audience. The use of the word â€Å"unseam’d† shows us Macbeth’s ruthlessness when in battle, with possibly no respect for other’s lives. The violent aspect of Macbeth’s character can be interpreted a disturbed one. His ruthlessness is quite inhumane in the sense that he shows signs of a villainous character. Another way in which Macbeth is seen a disturbed character, is his association and connection with the three witches. When Macbeth and Banquo are introduced in Scene 3, Macbeth’s first line is â€Å"So foul and fair a day I have not seen†. This quote echoes the witches’ in Scene 1, â€Å"Fair is foul and foul is fair†. The phrase is almost a paradox, it can interpreted to show how nothing is as it seems. However the fact that Macbeth repeated a phrase said by witches all but adds to a negative insight into his character. During Shakespeare’s time, witches were seen as very real creatures. In the early 17th century, suspected witches were burnt and there was even an Act of Parliament put forward in 1604 against them. This was because witches were subjects of morbid and fevered fascination by society at this time; people feared them. They were seen as creatures of Satan and therefore evil characters. The use of the three witches in the play adds to the fear within it and with this, the use of Macbeth echoing their words adds to the sheer disturbance. During this time, Macbeth’s reference to â€Å"foul and fair† would have caused a negative impact on the way the audience looked at him. To be associated with repelled evil witches creates a dark atmosphere and tone throughout the play. After the witches’ prophecy, Macbeth’s mind is beginning to turn into a state of madness and paranoia due his constant change in thoughts. The ideas that roam Macbeth’s head prove to be a substantial part of the Act. The prophecy, which promises the status of King in the future, has been fixed into Macbeth’s mind, provoking ill thoughts. After bearing witness to the supernatural occurrence, Macbeth begins to contemplate the idea of kill the present King Duncan in order to become King. â€Å"This supernatural soliciting/Cannot be ill, cannot be good† is a quote that clearly shows us the mindset that Macbeth is in confusion. The use of the words â€Å"ill† and â€Å"good† makes it clear that he is between the two thoughts and his mind isn’t thinking straight however he comes to a conclusion that he shouldn’t intervene to make the prophecy become true. However Macbeth again contemplates the idea later on in Scene 4. After realising that Malcolm, Duncan’s Son, is the rightful heir to the throne, Macbeth is again mystified to whether he should intervene in fate. â€Å"The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be/Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see† illustrates his desire for power but reluctance to commit murder, â€Å"the eye fears†. The theme of hesitation and constant contemplation of Macbeth is a sign of confusion within his mind. This is a sign of a disturbed character. Another way in which Macbeth can be seen in a negative way is through his motives and if they are with foundation especially through eyes of the audience who witnessed â€Å"Macbeth† in William Shakespeare’s time. This includes the idea of treason and how power was a God given right. In Scene 7 we find that Macbeth is considering whether killing Duncan is the right act to commit due to the high respect that the King holds him in. When talking in his soliloquy (something that Shakespeare uses to shows the audience the thoughts and true feelings of characters) Macbeth talks about his respect for Duncan, â€Å"I am his kinsman and his subject†, this supports the fact that he is also related to Duncan and a trusted figure. However his mindset is yet again changed as he finally decides that murder is the best option, â€Å"Fal se face must hide what the false heart doth know† is a signal of his change of mind but, with that, his personality. The idea of Macbeth committing murder on a King would have been frowned upon when the audience of the 17th century watched â€Å"Macbeth†. Political connotations such as the Gunpowder Plot 0f 1605 was possibly used by Shakespeare to relate to Macbeth and the idea of killing Kings. â€Å"Macbeth† was possibly used as a caution against potential regicides, especially with the patron of Shakespeare’s productions being the King James. Also religious connotations, such as the idea that the status of King was a God given right, played a significant part. Macbeth is aspiring to achieve a status that isn’t a God given thing, especially at this time the theme of treason was heavily frowned upon. The idea of Macbeth wanting to achieve Kingship without God given rights would have added to his disturbing character. There are other examples that show Macbeth’s disturbed character. One other factor could be his irrational thinking and the way that Lady Macbeth must always intervene to make him think right. Near the end of Scene 7, Macbeth tell his wife that he will not commit the murder, â€Å"We will proceed no further in this business†, is a firm claim from Macbeth. His tone is one that is very decisive however after the persuasive techniques of Lady Macbeth he quickly changes his mind. â€Å"I am settled, and bend up/ each corporal agent to this terrible feat† is said at the end of the scene, showing Macbeth’s sudden change in mind and sheer willingness to kill King Duncan. Macbeth doesn’t think straight and can be seen as having a fragile mind, one that can be easily moulded. Overall, Shakespeare successfully shows the audience how Macbeth develops his disturbed character. By using language features and also the views of certain themes of the audience of the time, he introduces a very irrational character. These themes include violence, religion, politics and the idea that man’s desire for power outweighs any respect for the consequences. Macbeth slowly develops from a violent person to someone who is very fragile in the mind and also, essentially, a disturbed character.

Mad Dogs Englishmen And The Errant Anthropologist Summary

In Mad Dogs, Englishmen, and the Errant Anthropologist, Raybeck’s approach to ethnography has been very similar to what is described in chapter 5 of Essentials of Cultural Anthropology. The postmodernism theory is that it emphasizes the non-material knowledge. Materialism emphasizes on the material system of behavior. Most Anthropologist are somewhere in the middle of these two or lean one way a little bit more because these are such extreme theory’s. Raybeck seems to view his research from the postmodernism theory more than the materialism theory. In Raybeck’s book he does a lot of looking at the culture, beliefs, and ideas of the Kelantanese but he also looks at the behaviors and scientific reasoning’s behind them. He looks at the†¦show more content†¦The main difference over all is that if the research was not done the way Raybeck had originally conducted it, the book would have been a lot more formal with its scientific reasoning’s. While reading in both books about ethnography I was shocked to learn that there was a ton of different theoretical perspectives. I was also shocked at how the theories are so different from one another. For some the only similarity is that it is the study of humans. Before the class I thought that there was a set way on how anthropology was studied but I very quickly found out that is not the case. Anthropology is very broad and is open to tons of different interpretations. There is no set way on how we must go about researching and studying. I believe that Raybeck chose appropriate field methods during his field work. During his field work Raybeck made decisions on how to answer his questions based on what methods would give him the most insight. He chose not to do a lot of surveys because he knew what kind of responses he would get. By doing surveys the information he would have gotten would have been wide rather than deep. An example on a time where the survey was not a good chose was when he was learning about how the Villagers view Chinese people. He would not have learned about how complex the matter truly is by just putting a survey out to the community. Interviews can be a better chose to get more detailed information. Interviews can be