Marketing plan report for Masafi company Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Marketing plan report for Masafi company - Essay Example It would examine the trends and choices for marketing and running the business. The report goes on to examine some important trends in the markets and deduce the competitor positions. It would identify the marketing potential and from there, the paper would formulate and recommend a marketing plan after identifying the marketing gaps that exist in Masafi. Background Analysis Masafi is focuses on mineral water and other food products that they produce in their factory and sell to customers in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and different parts of the world. Their products are unique and are tapped from the rich oases and mountains of Masafi, a region in the north-east of the United Arab Emirates. Masafi's competitive strength is in the fact that it produces world class water and consumer goods with a high degree of natural freshness and health potentials. Masafi is also reputed for being environmental-friendly in its approach of doing things. Past History The Masafi mountains and region is a vegetated mountainous region in the United Arab Emirates. The region contrasts the area in the vast west of the region which is mainly a sandy desert area. Masafi has a reputation of being an area with numerous springs and oases which were documented in Roman times. The locals of Masafi have always made use of the water and natural resources and sent them to different parts of the country for generations. However, in 1976, Masafi was officially incorporated with the view of commercializing the sale of water from the springs of the Masafi geographic area (Masafi Corporate, 2013). Masafi started with a small portfolio of just producing bottled water to consumers around the local area. It used traditional systems and methods of collecting water and sending it out to nearby communities. In 1990, Masafi expanded to different parts of the UAE. They sold their mineral water to large cities of the United Arab Emirates. In 1995, Masafi expanded to different portfolios. They produced ju ices from natural fruits, flavoured water, potato chips, and Basmati rice. The biggest product, the 4G (Four Gallon) water was added in 2000. In 2008, Masfai gained a reputation as a natural, organic and health product when they entered the beverage market. This quest was to make the company a fast-moving consumer goods company (FMCG) by 2011. They continued to produce 100% pure and natural products for consumers in different parts of the Persian Gulf Region. Export increased with the growth of the Emirati economy. This led to the sale of Masafi products to Africa, the Middle East and different zones around the region. Organizational Setup Masafi has a capital base of $5.5 million . This capital enables it to continue to produce and fund its operations and expansion drives. The company is involved in different projects in different parts of the country. Masafi has over 1,000 employees. The primary plants are located in the Masafi regions. However, the company has different warehousi ng networks around the country which enables it to distribute the products to the various cities and the ports of UAE. Masafi maintains a major recycling system on its site which allows it to recycle the plastics and other containers that are used to carry out the activities of the company. Masafi is one of the most profitable entities in the industry. In 2008, they increased their profits by 36% from 2007 records (Zawya, 2009). This represents a revenue of $26

International marketing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 3

International marketing - Essay Example Macy’s financial statements reveal that its sales in the United States have gone down in the last 5 years. Macy’s can use this opportunity to expand into a new country’s market. Secondly, over the past few years western media has played a significant role in influencing the culture and trends in the region. The demand for western goods has increased and consumers are looking more and more branded products. Customers now present a market which is willing to spend more on high quality goods. The number of department stores in Pakistan is very limited and competition is local. A department store will be welcomed by the consumers. This will give Macy’s a chance to ground itself before new competition enters the market. Macy’s is very well established in its home country and can explore opportunities in the foreign market. The management over 800 stores across the nation has significant expertise in marketing medium to high range products in a new country. Lastly, despite some challenging environmental factors, barriers to entry in Pakistan are low. Expanding into a newer region may also open doors to further expand within the country as well as the region of South Asia. Before a new market can be entered it is important for Macy’s to develop an international marketing plan to study the market and situation in the host country and determine the most suitable actions to take. International marketing plan provides market entry and targeting strategies and prospers the actions that are necessary for a business to get its product or service into the target market. Economic situation in the country is similar to that in the rest of the world, under the effects of the current recession. Over the last ten years, the employment rate increased giving rise to purchasing power. On a socio-cultural level the country has greatly fallen under western influence due to the proliferation of

Anti Federalist Arguments The Needed Balance

Anti Federalist Arguments The Needed Balance The year was 1787; delegates were convening at the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where the Declaration of Independence had been signed eleven years earlier.   There, 55 representatives came together for four months to frame a Constitution for a federal republic.   The reason for their convergence on Philadelphia was to revise the Articles of Confederation.   Since 1781 the Articles hindered the needed progress of the thirteen United States.   Rather than a united confederation, states were autonomous causing compromise and cooperation to be in short supply.   The Articles left most of the power with the state governments as a response to fears of re-creating a centralized power similar to Britain.   The burgeoning responsibilities of states were being impeded by several Articles, one being the lack of a revenue stream.   Under the Articles, Congress lacked authority to levy taxes.   It could request the states to contribute a share to the common treas ury, but the amounts gained through this mode of collection were not sufficient. To remedy this particular defect, Congress proposed an amendment that applied to the states for power to lay duties and secure the public debts. The amendment was agreed to by twelve out of thirteen states, with only Rhode Island refusing its consent, thereby defeating the proposal.   Articles 3 and 13 both required all thirteen states to agree in order to pass any legislation.   To overcome the necessity of thirteen states, early in the deliberations delegates voted that only nine states would be required to ratify the constitution.   This change made a difference to the process of ratification.   No longer could Rhode Island or any other state keep the whole from collective progress by one abstaining vote.   The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proceeded with men from every state but Rhode Island, as they deliberated over the necessary amendments to the Articles of Confederation the y all agreed that unfortunately, the Articles were not worth amending or saving.   Amid great secrecy they begin to write or â€Å"frame† a new constitution. As the delegates analyzed the Articles of Confederation, they noted many points that were to be part of the new document.   One was an executive branch; in affect the Articles disallowed an executive branch to enforce the laws, nor a national court system to interpret them. The question arose in 1689, a hundred years earlier, by social philosophers such as John Locke, who were arguing the need for an executive to have the power to enforce laws that are enacted by the people.   Under the Articles of Confederation in 1787, Congress was the sole organ of the national government without the ability to force the states to do anything against their will. Congress could in theory declare war and call for an army to be raised, but it could not force any state to provide its assigned quota for troops or arms or the equipment needed to support them. Due to their autonomy, the states were impervious to the threat of force or punishment, leaving Congress at a loss for the income needed to fi nance its activities.   Should a state or states not chose to participate Congress could not punish them for not contributing their share of the federal budget.    In relation to finance and monetary controls, the states controlled taxation and tariffs within their state, and each state could issue its own legal tender.   To this point, the states were more likened to European countries with disputes over borders, different currency and differing governments. Such significant differences caused disputes to arise between the states. Undoubtedly there were many unsettled quarrels over state boundaries and currency issues in regard to trade.   In the end, the only role that Congress could play was of mediator and judge without the force needed to require states to accept its decisions.    With so many contradictory Articles governing the country, a secure future seemed lost due to the many factors that would from past experience, never come together.  Ã‚   For the most part , the nations government, under the Articles of Confederation, seemed like a body without arms and legs.   From May to September 1787 a completely new and improved articles of confederation were written and called the Constitution.   The proposed Constitution was the tool that would presumably lay the foundation for future generations in governance of America.   The purpose and job of the Constitution was to correct the faulty Articles of Confederation and ensure greater central government strength and allow states to proceed as before with greater security and ability.   This was the hope but, the message was not received with the same understanding by the people.   Each state sized up its own unique situation and by calling their own ratification conventions, discussed the issues to determine if the proposed constitution would guarantee existing rights and benefit the state as a whole and not just portions of it.   After the work was completed the â€Å"framers came to an agreement on a final draft of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, after which they signed and prepare d to send it to the people for ratification. American people were now faced with a daunting task.   The whole of the nation had arrived at an important moment of their existence as a union.   Each state had matured at its own rate and grown into its geographical area by putting to use the natural resources each had to work with.   In doing so, they created and built an infrastructure and their own economic stability.   The American states were asked to enter into a federal covenant that would guide and by law regulate the countrys population in trade, commerce, security, and foreign relations. This question became Americas first political argument and one of the most important.   When the final draft was ready for public discourse and ratification not all thirteen states agreed with the entire document.   Smaller states found, what they believed were flaws that withdrew power from the individual states and gave it to the central government, which too many was against the American ideology of independence.   As a reaction to the many questions and concerns the American people were expressing a trio of men came together.   They were physically only 30 years old yet; they were indeed older through the acquisition of political experience, knowledge, and power.   For example, Alexander Hamilton served as a captain and as Washingtons aide-de-camp during the Revolution, he distinguished himself at the bar after victory, and by 1787 was already a prominent figure in the creation of the infant nation. The next man James Madison, by contrast, was more the pensive philosopher than the bold statesman. A lifelong student of philosophy, history, and law, particularly the law of nations, Madison would, despite his shyness, be a commanding presence and driving force at the constitutional convention.    However, it was John Jay who was the most experienced of all three by the time the Constitutional Convention was called. Aside from having served the fledgling republic as a masterful negotiator, a diplomat, and even, for a time, as its president, Jay was the only one to have had direct experience in Europe.   And so by 1787, all three gentlemen were indeed old with experience, well prepared to meet the challenges of the task at hand.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Taking the lead in pushing for ratification, in 1787 these three politicos decided that in order for the new Constitution to be ratified there would have to be a saturation of the issues at hand in the newspapers.   They, along with other men, wrote their arguments for the Constitution and came to be known as the Federalists.   In the same spirit as the Federalists emerged their counterparts, the anti-Federalists.   Both sides published statements, essays, and their opinions on why the proposed constitution should or should not be accepted and ratified. Each group of men was driven by their beliefs and together they fought for what they thought was important for their country.   The anti-Federalist later went by the name of Republican and the Democratic Republican, they spoke for many of the smaller states and their constituents, who had fought and sacrificed along with American forces for the victory over Britain.   They had foresight in their convictions which continue to serve the country today.   The Federalists were influential intellectuals who believed in the Constitution, and believed that it was the perfect model of government to achieve a just society.   Under the proposed Constitution, the American people could enjoy their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Generally, Federalists were wealthy citizens, highly educated professionals, who in most cases were lawyers and their supporters followed suit by being Propertied and educated people.   In their arguments for the provisions of the Constitution, Federalists stated that if the Constitution had sections or certain language that did not work, amendments could be made. Their arguments were decidedly their strongest weapon in their pursuit to educate the public.   Alexander Hamilton was first to publish the Federalists first argument for ratification of the Constitution.   His opening words grabbed his audience: AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. Hamilton had offered the perfect statement on the weight of the matter before them as a country, during this most august period of American history.   Of this there was no argument.   Yet, as the essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Madison, and John Jay began filtering throughout the states there came responses from their counterparts, the anti-Federalists.   They were somewhat less organized than the Federalists, not owing to any financial benefice and served to represent the strong opposition to the idea of states loss of power to a federal government.   The response given to the Federalists essays began with an author known as â€Å"A FEDERALIST†: I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. Thus the war of words had commenced, a thought at that moment might have been, shall we as a public agree to the Constitution as written or shall we, for all future generations, dissect and analyze the document before placing our hand in agreement?   The American people read the essays, listened at town hall meetings, and fueled public dialogue to full head by complete dissemination of the issues at hand offered by both groups of authors.   Their writings were strong, psychological, emotional, and called to the heart of the population to come together for the benefit of the whole and not the one.   The anti-Federalists included some very impressive notables such as Patrick Henry, James Winthrop, Robert Yates, George Clinton, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson. Not all contributed to the essays.   Those who did, rather than using their own names, took their cue from the Federalists and used pseudonyms.   The anti-Federalist writers shared a considerably wider range of views. Common concerns were expressed by authors known as Brutus and A Federal Farmer.Robert Yates was known to be â€Å"Brutus† but, the identity of A Federal Farmer was never confirmed. One of the key points these two men made regarded the necessary and proper clause.   The Necessary and Proper Clause, also referred to as the Elastic, Basket, and the Sweeping Clause is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18: The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. This clause gave Congress the power to make laws which were necessary to execute all powers vested in the Constitution. The anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution only had the power to do what it states it can, and that nothing should be presupposed by the government. In other words, the government should never use the necessary and proper clause as a blanket grant of power†.   Anti-Federalist were men who understood from their recent involvement with the Revolution that giving too much power to a national government could foster tyrannical desires for more power.   The aristocratic elite and moneyed men would govern for their own states and personal benefit without any concern for the smaller states needs.   Further, the anti-Federalist felt Americans had been given empty promises and after fighting for independence their own independence and ability to provide for their families would become extinct if the Constitution was ratified as it was written.   The prim ary fear was that while a republican government was desirable in order to defend liberty, it was not possible over a large geographic area, such as the United States, because it had never been accomplished before. The fall of the Roman Empire was an implosion, a reaction to inadequate governing of an area to vast to control. The other major pitfall of republics had been class war, something that the Founding Fathers had seen in the recent Shays Rebellion. From 1781 to 1787 there was much consternation within the borders of the United States.   From an extract of a letter from James Madison to George Washington, Feb. 3, 1788, we can read sentiments received from Boston from a member of the convention there: Never was there an assembly in this state in possession of greater ability and information than the present convention, yet I am in doubt whether they will approve the constitution. There are, unhappily, three parties opposed to it. First: All men who are in favor of paper money and tender laws. Those are more or less in every part of the state. Second: All the late insurgents and their abettors. In the three great western counties they are very numerous. We have in the convention eighteen or twenty who were actually in Shays army. Shays Rebellion was an example of the small farmers and independents who had their land and homes threatened to be taken from them.   An armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts, centering in Springfield from 1786 to 1787, Shays rebellion represented the poor compatriots farmers angered by what they felt to be crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtors prisons or the claiming of property by the County.   The leader of the Rebellion, Daniel Shays, was himself a veteran of the American Revolution who found himself engulfed in the issue and fought for a way out.    The rebellion was still fresh on the minds of many, causing the mood among the last states to ratify to be thick with opposition and strong sentiments against the contents of the constitution.   The last states to accept the proposed constitution were New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and Rhode Island.   New York presented the problem in its simplest form, the entire mass of interior counties, from Ulster to Columbia, were solidly anti-Federal, encompassing the agricultural portion of the state, the last arrived and settled, and the most thinly populated.   Governor George Clinton of New York wrote on one of the important issues among the anti-Federalists.   From the following extract of a letter from New York, July 20, 1788, George Clinton was quoted as saying, if they ratify the constitution, they must by heavy taxes support their government, which is now wholly done by the impost, etc.   This with the Mynheers is a weighty argument.   George Clinton went on to write, In Opposition to Destruction of States Rights, the following: The premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all thirteen parts into one great whole, under the firm of the United States But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United Statesthe dissimilitude of interests, morals, and politics in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posteritythis unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself Clinton continued that from his prospective there were no promises that could be made secure â€Å"on the score of consolidation of the United States into one government.†Ã‚   Impracticability, risk, ambitious, and aggrandizement, oppression, intricate and perplexed became words to describe the proposed constitution.   Clinton ended by saying that the proposed constitution was â€Å"too mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic† Interpretation and understanding by the common man was an important factor for the anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.   Writing on states rights, Federalist No. 6 author stated, â€Å"A great danger exists in the competition between states themselves if they are left entirely to their own sovereignty, with no unifying government. Men are by their nature ambitious, and independent states will naturally compete with one another for love of power, control of commerce and domination of territory.† The response from anti-Federalist explained that a strong state government was better than a strong central government. To them if the central government was too strong then it would threaten the peoples liberties and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   What rights did the people have under the proposed Constitution?   This issue was the next mountain to cross towards ratification. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, who wrote Need for a Bill of Rights felt: this proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature!. You ought to be watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forevera wrong step made now will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise The argument over the Bill of Rights was arguably the most important issue for the ratification of the constitution.   Their necessity appeared to be of greater importance in order to calm the states.   Patrick Henry added these words in his observation of the matter, â€Å"We are told that all powers not given are reserved. I am sorry to bring forth hackneyed observations. But, Sir, important truths lose nothing of their validity or weight, by frequency of repetition.†Ã‚   Rather than infer the rights of the people, â€Å"all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights,† they would be declared.   This argument was one of the turning points for the final states ratification of the Constitution.   Henry continued his essay on the essential need for the bill of rights by explaining: Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw  ­ a government that has abandoned all its powers  ­ the powers of taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights  ­ without check, limitation, or control You have Bill of Rights to defend against a state government, which is bereaved of all its power, and yet you have none against Congress, thought in full and exclusive possession of all power! The Bill of Rights was important to the American people and by promising to make amendments and provide a draft of a Bill of Rights the delegates began to revisit their stance toward acceptance of the proposed constitution.   The â€Å"Bill† was demanded by the anti-Federalists in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island where the battle for ratification was not clear. In these states the voting was a lot closer than in the states that first decided to ratify. The Federalists however had strong opposition to a Bill of Rights. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill argued that a list of rights would not, should not, and could not be interpreted as exhaustive; these rights were examples of important rights people had, along with other rights as well. Many concerned with the final interpretation of the Bill of Rights were confident that the judiciary would construe these rights in a liberal fashion. Fortunately, the Ninth Amendment would clarify the matter by addressing the rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.   The arguments were just getting started, representation was of extreme importance to the smaller states who felt their position and voices would be extinguished if their representation was not equal to the larger states, who by virtue of their size may attempt to dominate on issues against those states with less representation.   The fear was understandable.   The Deep South would go to war over such issues as representation.   Melancton Smith, a New York representative at the Convention, wrote his views on the issue of representation for the anti-Federalists stating: When we speak of representatives they resemble those they represent. They should be a true picture of the people, possess a knowledge of their circumstances and their wants, sympathize in all their distresses, and be disposed to seek their true interests. Smith believed that the â€Å"knowledge necessary† for the true representative of a free people should include a comprehension of: extensive political and commercial information, such as is acquired by men of refined education, who have leisure to attain to high degrees of improvement, but it should also comprehend that kind of acquaintance with the common concerns and occupations of the people, which men of the middling class of life are, in general, more competent to than those of a superior class. In order to represent a state, its inner structure must be understood.   The true commercial interests of a country are not the only requirement for representation but also, and most importantly, â€Å"a knowledge of the productions of your own country, and their value, what your soil is capable of producing, the nature of your manufactures, the capacity of the country to increase both.† In the area of laying taxes, duties, and exercises with discretion requires knowledge of the system of finance.   A representative should also know about the people of his country, their circumstances and a general understanding of their economic commerce and ability.   They should also understand, â€Å"how the burdens imposed will bear upon the different classes.†Ã‚   Representatives should be from all walks and levels, not just elite citizens but, those of the â€Å"middling class of life.†Ã‚   Smith, as well as others, had a real concern that most bodies of the government were composed of the first class in the community and by distinguishing them by class, it would appear that the government would fall into the hands of the â€Å"few and the great.†Ã‚   In order to relieve the delegates of unrelenting concern Smith offered the following insight on representation: This will be a government of oppressionA system of corruption is known to be the system of government in Europe it will be attempted among us. The most effectual as well as natural security against this is a strong democratic branch in the legislature, frequently chosen, including in it a number of the substantial, sensible, yeomanry of the country. Does the House of Representatives answer this description? I confess, to me they hardly wear the complexion of a democratic branch; they appear the mere shadow of representation. The anti-Federalists were important to the final outcome of the ratification process because they poised questions that made the American people stop and think about what they were agreeing to and what they may lose or gain as a consequence of the proposed Constitutions acceptance.   Thomas Jefferson, third president of the U.S., from his own beliefs regarding the ratification of the Constitution, feared it would grant too much power to the U.S. government.   Jefferson thought it should be up to the states to govern themselves with a â€Å"hands-off† approach and strictly limited interference of the national government.   The funny thing about Jefferson, figurehead of the anti-Federalists was for a long time he would not choose sides between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, because of his anti-political party sentiment. He found both sides arguments compelling, he was for a strong central government, which was more of a Federalists view. But, the argument that brought Thomas Jefferson to the anti-Federalist side was Alexander Hamiltons implied powers.   Implied powers were powers which were not stated directly in the Constitution, in other words powers that were assumed by the government. Jefferson was totally against this, he believed that the Constitution could do the things which the Constitution states it can and nothing should be assumed, strict construction. This disagreement would become a great feud between Hamilton and Jefferson, evolving into the first real battle of political parties for election in office. It should be noted that there were conflicting personalities among the â€Å"framers† and their anti-Federalist opposition. When comparing and contrasting anti-Federalist views on the ratification of the United States Constitution with those of the Federalists, one must also consider the inherent relationship that represents their respective views upon principles, problems and solutions, ultimately surmising which side best reflects or departs from the original principles set forth for the Declaration. It can be argued that the two sides are quite contrary in their individual perceptions, with each faction believing its own views are of primary integrity.   One of the major beliefs of the Federalists as pointed out at the Philadelphia convention was that a state should vote according to its population. This later became another big issue with the anti-Federalists and people from the smaller states. By comparison of the elite Federalist camp, the anti-Federalists were made up of anyone who was poor and not a big landowner, anyone tired of being controlled, anyone who wanted the peoples votes to directly count and anyone who wanted to protect their rights. The anti-Federalists were made up of all different types of people, who represented the United States population as a whole, far better than did the Federalists. The anti-Federalists wanted their power in the legislature, mainly the lower house where every state has one vote; and the terms of office to be shorter, with limits on how many terms you could serve. These officials were not to be elected by representatives but directly by the vote of the people of the United States. Finally, the only way the anti-Federalists would ever consider helping to ratify the Constitution was if it contained a Bill of Rights, which was believed essential for preserving the individual liberties of the people. It was the consensus of anti-Feder alist everywhere that without this document the government could control every aspect of a persons life. To them the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was just a weapon of the elite upper class over the poor. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt, and the anti-Federalists were able to play on these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts in 1788. By this stage, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease; the Massachusetts convention however, was hostile and argumentative. In the fight for ratification of the proposed United States Constitution between Federalists and anti-Federalists propaganda played a large role on both sides.   Patrick Henry even saw the constitution as a revolutionary document much like Americas separation from Britain, he said I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.Despite the fact the Federalists and the anti-Federalists had opposing views regarding the constitution; both were headed for a common goal of forming a government that could run the country. Many anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government.   States rights, the Bill of Rights, and represenation were all heated subjects during the ratification phase.   The Bill added a comfort zone for the states; they needed security from the fear that the federal government could control them under a tyranny. States felt they would retain their rights through the freedoms afforded through the Bill of Rights.   These freedoms include freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to deny refuge to soldiers, the right to privacy from search, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to representation and to a speedy trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, the right to always have rights, and the right for states to rule on things not mentioned in the Constitution. None of this was possible under British rule; power was transferred from the center to the people. If the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights, the central government could parlay its strength denying people these basic rights. As states made their decision through their own ratification conventions the nine states needed for ratification began voting.   The first state that ratified the Constitution, although its convention was not the first to assemble, was Delaware, followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut.   Ratification of the Constitution was four states away

Shakespeare - Artisan of the Atmosphere in Macbeth :: Free Essay Writer

Shakespeare - Artisan of the Atmosphere in Macbeth      Ã‚  Ã‚   Shakespeare in his tragedy Macbeth removes any doubt that he is a true artist at developing atmosphere. Let us examine his construction of the atmosphere in this tragedy.    Lily B. Campbell in her volume of criticism, Shakespeare's Tragic Heroes: Slaves of Passion, explains how the atmosphere of terror and fear is built up:    Macbeth is, however, not only a study of fear; it is a study in fear. The sounds and images in the play combine to give the atmosphere of terror and fear. The incantation of the witches, the bell that tolls while Duncan dies, the cries of Duncan, the cries of the women as Lady Macbeth dies, the owl, the knocking at the gate, the wild horses that ate each other, the story, the quaking of the earth - all of these are the habitual accompaniments of the willfully fearful in literature. (238-39)    Charles Lamb in On the Tragedies of Shakespeare comments on the atmosphere surrounding the play:    The state of sublime emotion into which we are elevated by those images of night and horror which Macbeth is made to utter, that solemn prelude with which he entertains the time till the bell shall strike which is to call him to murder Duncan, - when we no longer read it in a book, when we have given up that vantage-ground of abstraction which reading possesses over seing, and come to see a man in his bodily shape before our eyes actually preparing to commit a muder, if the acting be true and impressive as I have witnessed it in Mr. K's performance of that part, the painful anxiety about the act, the natural longing to prevent it while it yet seems unperpetrated, the too close pressing semblance of reality, give a pain and an uneasiness [. . .]. (134)    In Fools of Time: Studies in Shakespearean Tragedy, Northrop Frye shows how the atmosphere is altered for the better at the end of the play:    This theme is at its clearest where we are most in sympathy with the nemesis. Thus at the end of Macbeth, after the proclamation "the time is free," and of promises to make reparations of Macbeth's tyranny "Which would be planted newly with the time," there will be a renewal not only of time but of the whole rhythm of nature symbolized by the word "measure," which includes both the music of the spheres and the dispensing of human justice [.

Justice Is Under Threat in the Risk Society’, Is Barbara Hudson Right to Argue This?

‘Justice is under threat in the risk society’, is Barbara Hudson right to argue this? In the UK the state advised what it expects of us and in response to this gives us laws that we are not legitimate to disobey. We currently live in a de facto and de jure state where no one else can take part in violence apart from the state when needed, and the laws are seen as just. From the seventeenth century to the late twentieth century there has been a change in society creating a modernist era which saw the ending of feudalism and the devotement of capitalism. Hudson, 2003:3) This period saw changes in the way individuals lived their lives and viewed the world; there were political changes and systems of punishment. The changes stirred ‘political, moral and legal philosophy – the fields at whose intersection we find justice. ’(Hudson, 2003:3) This essay will highlight the reasons why Barbara Hudson is right to argue that justice is under threat in the risk so ciety. It will first outline Kant’s and Rawls’s theory of justice and it will then look at what risk society is.Finally it will compare if justice and the risk society are compatible using DSPD as a case study. Immanuel Kant was an enlightenment philosopher in utilitarian liberalism. He had many theories what justice is and what this means and theories on how this affected punishment. He used the devolvement of enlightenment to search for the measure of justice, whereby humans are seen as rational and capable of analysis and decision making. (Hudson, 2003:5) Previously issues for justice for liberal democracies had been about the distribution of material and social goods. Hudson, 2003:6) However, for Kant his theory of justice revolved around the idea of individual freedom and equal freedom for all. He believes as we are all rational and capable of making are own decisions that we can all abide by the moral law. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on what he calls the categorical imperative, where he says ‘Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law’ (Kant, 1987:2) Meaning that you should treat people as you would want to be treated, and not to an end to a means, if we do not treat people as equal then there is no justice.Rawls was a contemporary liberalist who was a student of Kant’s who looked to an alternative to utilitarianism in his theory of justice. (Kymlicka, 2002:53) His approach was intuitionism theory which he said had two features, that they consist of plurality of first principles and that they include no explicit methods and we are simply to strike a balance by intuition to what seems right. (Kymlicka, 2002:54) Rawls had two principles of justice; the first was that ‘each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. (Kymlicka, 2002:56) He sta tes when making decisions we should mentally put ourselves behind a veil of ignorance for all members of society to agree, as this would lead everyone in society to be treated more fairly as they would not know where in society they would be placed therefore limiting their risk. This way you could distribute goods completely fair without discriminating against anyone and by doing so you would end up with a system in which you would make sure the worst off are as well of as possible as we would not know which group we were going to be in; the rich or the poor group of society. Baggini, 2005:29) Rawl’s second principle of justice are that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that , they are to be the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of the society and offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Therefore since there will be always discrepancies, members of society would agree to take part as again they would not know which group of society they fall into and by removing all inequalities to which disadvantage someone thus creating a more just society.Thus for Rawl’s, justice equals fairness and fairness equals proportionality. Risk Society theory was developed to claim why and how society is changing. Becks and Glidden’s contended they have been changes in how society works and suggest that we are now living in a society of risk. Risk society is not suggesting that we live in a world with more risk but that our perception of risk has become a key factor in our organising principle. Cited in Hudson, Ericson and Carriere say ‘We now live in a risk society; there is a drift in the public agenda away from economic inequality to the distribution and control of risks. (Hudson, 2003:43)There are seven key concepts to the risk society; Modernity, Late Modernity, Reflexive modernisation, Manufactured uncertainty, Actuarialism, Risk distribution and Individuali sm. Late Modernity is the term used in the contemporary era showing the transformations in societies whereby there has been shift towards capitalist economies and globalisation rather than welfare approach. With late modernity you are able to look back at what had been done and use this to help you predict how to change in the future to limit your risk. Denny, 2005:28) Reflexive modernisation and manufactured uncertainty was a concept developed by Becks and Giddens who are key risk society theorists. They explain that with development of technology, this has created new and different risk and the technology we have makes us more aware of the potential risk, as the media is no longer just in the form of newspapers and television, we have access on computers and even mobile phones therefore we are able to see and hear potential risks 24 hours a day. Adam et al, 2000:168) However, because we have made this risk with the devolvement of technology then we are able to understand it better and assume we can measure them. They apply the concept of Actualarism that categorise populations according to risk, with this concept we can measure the risk and the likelihood of them happening and by doing this we can take steps in reducing and avoiding these risks. A fundamental concept in the risk society is that to avoid risk we can distribute the risk which is part of neo-liberalism.This can be seen to be used in everyday life with car insurance companies who charge an individual more money in according to the risk they pose whilst driving . Risk has become a fundamentally commodity in a capitalist society. Risk society means that risk thinking has become normalised for individuals in everyday life, every decision we make we think about the risk connected to it. The rise of individualism has seen that individuals will purchase the best risk protection they can without thinking about the weaker person in society.Hudson states that we now fear crime from one another and becaus e of this we want people who threaten us to be removed from our environment to eliminate the risk, this has been a contributing factor to why society has become more punitive. (Hudson, 2003:45) In the risk society governance is directed at the provision of security and experience of security usually rests on a balance of trust and acceptable risk in the form of guarantees and predictability. These risks become objectified negative images of utopias where people are no longer concerned with obtaining the good but rather, preventing the worst.A key question for liberal theorists is how much liberty should be traded for the level of security. In today’s society the state controls and governs the way in which we live our lives. Society has handed over the power to the state through a social contract whereby we give up some of our liberty in the hope the government are able to protect us from potential risks. One of the effects of this is that we let the government control how the y punish offenders.Bentham and Kant, two unitlitarists held different views on Punishment, For Bentham he said it is inherently bad, Bentham, a ulitarian and theorist for punishment stated, cited in Ashworth ‘that moral actions are those that produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. ’(Ashworth, 2010:79) ‘Therefore to justify punishment we must do so by showing its utility. However Kant thought that punishment was good and there was a duty that the offender got their just deserts through his principle of equality. (Duff and Garland, 1994; 141) The reason for punishing must serve as a justification for that punishment.The just dessert model means that you should get the punishment you deserve by receiving a sentence that it is proportionate to the offence you have committed. (Scott, 2008, 199) Indeterminate sentencing which is associated with utilitarianism is linked to the risk society and justice, as because they believe we can measure risk they think we can make predictions for future crimes. However, by punishing someone for a crime they have done this in turn will help reduce crime in the belief that fear will stop others from committing the same crime. Honderich, 2006:26-27) However, it is immoral and there is no justice to give someone a harsher sentence and make an example of them in the hope of helping to deter others from the same crime. Hirsch’s study found that harsher sentences do not deter others and reduce crime rate. (Hirsch, 1999:3) Indeterminate sentences transgress the reason and justification for punishment, by admitting guilt for the initial offence they assume they are guilty of reoffending therefore are given longer prison sentences for the good of society this cannot be just..A problem for justice when punishing an offender is the need to address justice for whom; the offender or victim, what constitutes justice for the victim will not mean justice for the offender there will always be a p roblem balancing the two. Risk management is linked to the decision making and minimising harm, it seeks to predict the outcome and the potential for harm. (Denny,:119) With this acutalarisms approach to risk assessment disappears and gives rise to false positives.False positives are when an individual is wrongly predicted as being likely to reoffend; these people would not have offended if they were free. (Scott, 2008:24) Since society has become more aware of risks there is more pressure for the Criminal Justice System and Government to limit these risks. This can be seen in Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Act. DSPD is a disease that the government made up to so they could incarcerate people who had this illness as they believe they pose a risk to society The emergence of psychosocial diagnoses reflected the prevalence of medicalization. by saying it’s a medical problem they are saying there is something wrong with the individual rather than society. When an indiv idual is diagnosed with DSPD they are not sent to a mental hospital, they are placed in units in high security prisons even if they have not committed an offence. (Corbett and Westwood, 2005:122) There is mandatory incarceration, and you are asked to volunteer for cognitive skills programmes to treat the disorder, however if you don’t volunteer then you will not be released although even if you do volunteer you may never be released.However, many clinicians believe that it cannot be treated and that they are more likely to be a danger to themselves than to others. (Scott, 2008:117). DSPD cause a great deal of controversy as it has no legal or medical base many say this disorder does not exist and the government have only put it in place as they think these individuals pose a risk to society, this demonises sections of the population. (Hirsch et al, 2009:155) DSPD manifests Becks analysis of the risk society and the approaches to understanding the notion of risk.Any person dia gnosed with this the ‘risk society’ may constitute them as unmanageable, ‘such that increasingly complex systems of rational control are required to ensure future public safety. ’(Corbett and Westwood, 2005:125) DSPD highlights one of the reasons why justice is not compatible in the risk society, it is not just to incarcerate someone because they have an illness, and it goes against Rawls and Kant’s principle of justice. As we now live in a risk society it is more difficult have justice for all.There is a belief that we can assess how dangerous a person is, not only on past events but even if they have a medical illness as society thinks they can measure and predict risk. As society demands more security from risks, the government has had to undermine justice as there is more demand for those who threaten our security to be brought to justice. Hudson states that ‘liberal theories leave unanswered the question how much liberty maybe curtailed to prevent how much harm. ’(Hudson, 2003:205) If society demands more security from risk they would have less liberty.If society was to use Rawls principle of the veil of ignorance then they would be less likely to ask for more security as they would not now what position they would be in. The demand for justice and security conflicts with each other , the discourse of risk requires indeterminate sentencing and stands in the way of justice and the government need to appear to make the world less dangerous and the fairness and rights of the offender is put aside, as the elimination of risk is deemed to be more important.The equal balance of justice and risk cannot happen as by having justice for one person maybe creating a risk for another and vice versa and in today’s society there is more emphasis on control of risk. The risk society is fundamentally taking away the values of liberal society by using people as a means to an end, by the elimination fairness and proportio nality. The explosion of risk-focused technologies has been a contributing factor to the risk society as we are now more aware of risks and as we have developed them we believe we can measure them and predict them although this not always correct which means that there is no justice for all.Justice is thus a state of relationships which brings about equilibrium in the free exercise of will but this does not happen in a risk society as it threatens the definition of justice. To legitimise the state and governments actions they create more risk as a state in fear is an easier one to control. Hudson has highlight that towards the end of the 20th Century they was a move from risk management to risk control and it is now embedded in our society. Hudson,2003:60) As we can see from the issues highlighted it is inevitable that Barbara Hudson is correct to say that justice is under threat in the risk society. Bibliography Denney. D (2005) Risk and Society, London, Sage Scott. D (2008) Penolo gy, London, Sage Duff. A, Garland. D (1994) A reader on Punishment, Oxford, Oxford University Press Von Hirsch. A, Ashworth. A, Roberts. J (2009) Principled Sentencing readings on theory and practice, North America, Hart Publishing Kymlicka. W (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press O’Neill.O (2000) Bounds of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Cudworth. E, Hall. T, McGoverm. J (2007) The Modern State, Theories and Ideologies, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press Baggini. J (2005) The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: And Ninety-Nine Other Thought Experiments, London, Granta Publications Adam, Beck, Van Loon, (2000) The Risk Society and Beyond, Critical Issues for Social Theo Ashworth, A, (2010) Sentencing and Criminal Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Pressry, London, Sage Honderich, T (2006) Punishment, London: Pluto PressHirsch, V (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an analysis of recent research, London: Sage Hu dson, B (2003) Justice in the Risk Society, London, Sage Kant. I (1987) The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, New York, Macmillan Publishing Corbett. K, Westwood. T Dangerous and severe personality disorder’: A psychiatric manifestation of the risk society, Critical Public Health,;15(2): 121–133

Ptlls Learning Journal Day One

The main points I have learnt from this session are: †¢Looking at ice breakers as a way of learners becoming more relaxed with each other and also as a way of beginning to interact with each other, ensuring that the topics are relevant to the learners and that they are not too controversial or likely to cause offence etc., they also encourage team work and inclusion †¢They are also a way of establishing trust within a group and reducing nervousness (apprehension) †¢We looked at training cycles and the various aspects such as identifying needs, planning and designing, delivering or facilitating, assessing and evaluating How could I develop my practical skills as a result of this session? †¢Be more conscious of the reactions of others and giving them an opportunity to express their opinions rather than doing all of the talking and making assumptions about what people are thinking †¢Planning and designing work or tasks that need to be carried out †¢Everyone has a different personal construct system and being aware of the skills and personal experience of others in terms of its impact on how they relate to others †¢Being aware of total communication from others i.e. verbal and non verbal communication as well as body language, look at mirroring people’s body language or having a more relaxed way of communicating information if relevant How could I develop my knowledge and understanding as a result of this session? †¢I could carry out further study on personal construct systems †¢Look at how transactional analysis impacts people †¢Look at various learning styles and when using them is most appropriate †¢Being aware of the checks and balances that are in place to see if learners are actually assimilating information, could be in the form of short quizzes at various stages in the course †¢Also receiving feedback could be feedback on course, feedback on lecturer, feedback on topic, feedback on venue (depending on if own venue or if hired venue).