Death Penalty and Torture Debate Essays

Death Penalty and Torture Debate Essays Death Penalty and Torture Debate Paper Death Penalty and Torture Debate Paper Pro Death Penalty/Capital Punishment I agree with death penalty. Death penalty prevents future murders, It Is an ultimate warning against all crimes, the society requires death penalty for taking a life; eye for an eye, it provides closures for the victims families and friends, and it contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Argument 1. Death penalty prevents future murders. Even If the criminals are given a life sentence, If theyre actions are good in prison, they are able to leave the prison. Yes, even after they leave, they will be released on a sciences, which means that they are subject to certain conditions for the rest of their life. But the fact that they committed a crime does not change. They could make the same mistake and harm innocent people. http:// counterinsurgencies. Judiciary. Gob. UK/sentencing/sentencing-myths. HTML 2. Death penalty Is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminals know that if they commit any Intolerable crime, the justice system wont stop at putting them to death. When a criminal takes an innocent life, the balance of justice is unbalanced. To balance the Justice, it is only by taking the murderers life and it will allow the society to show that committing a intolerable crime, they will be punished. Charles E. Rice, SD, Professor Emeritus at Eve Maria School of Law at the university of Notre Dame, In a June 22, 1987 The New American article titled Retribution is an Obligation: o As an exercise In retribution, punishment serves to right the balance of justice that is disturbed by the crime, provided that the punishment is appropriate. Http://dependently. Procom. Org/view. Answers. PH? Questioned=001004 4.   It provides closure for victims, who have suffered so much. There are many victims from a single murder. The criminal eventually gets caught and is brought under Justice, but the victim no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the victim has people who love him such as their family and friends. By putting the murderer to death, the surviving victims grief towards the criminal will not end, but the execution could engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal. Orthophosphate. Com/vengeance. Tm 5. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the world are having problems with overpopulation. Even if they are criminals, they still need all the essential things to live even If It is in a prison. Such as portion If people remove the death penalty as an option to punish the criminals, there will be a lot more criminals who are going to be crammed in to prisons. This only adds to the problem of overcrowded prisons. Horselaugh. Org/overcrowding/ Counter Argument 1. The risk of executing the innocent. People claim lots of innocent people are wrongly executed, but there is no evidence that any innocent people have actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals that were added to the death penalty system in the asses. Even if such executions happen, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed to prove that people are innocent with technology, such as DNA testing, then those should be instituted. But the need of development is not a reason to abolish death penalty. Even the criminals have the right to live. Everyone has the right to live if they didnt commit any crime that will lead them to death penalty. Yes maybe we have no right to take the criminals life, but firstly, they had no right to take the victims life. If we spare the criminals life, then 3. Life sentence is a worse punishment then death penalty and is more of an effective deterrent. Life sentence does not last for the rest of the criminals life. If their actions are good in prison, they are able to get out of prisons and live out side with few limitations. Even after they served their several years of their life in prison, the fact that they committed an unthinkable crime does not change. Giving the criminals a life sentence instead of death penalty, then you are giving them another chance to choose the wrong path and harm the innocents. Because of death penalty, it prevents future murders, it is an ultimate warning against all crimes, the society requires death penalty for taking a life; eye for an eye, it provides closures for the victims families and friends, and it contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. I believe that people who are against capital punishment is wrong because by giving the criminals a second chance and let them live, it is not fair for the innocent victim whom their life was taken because of that criminals wrong decision. Also, even if the criminal spends his time in prison, it doesnt change the fact that they were once a criminal and they could do the same thing again and hurt the innocents. Pro Alternative Torture Torture is a way to get information out of criminals who refuse to speak, we are able to give the criminals the experience of whatever pain they give to the victims, it is a ay of protecting many innocent lives and preventing from any future attacks, being tortured is better than not living, and it is a way of comforting people. 1. It is a way to get information out of criminals who refuse to speak. It is an Information or confessions are easily retrieved from criminals through torture. Information is sometimes very important if lives are in stake or if it is for the good of the society or country. Able to get valuable information about many things such as battle tactics. - Here. Org/index. PH? Base_id=134 2. It gives the criminal a feeling of knowing what victims felt. -Way of revenge They should be subjected to the pains that they have caused the others. Being executed is a much easier way for the criminals to get through than being tortured. But if the criminals did these horrible crimes for no reason, than they should know what kind of pain the victims went through. http://held. Disconnecting. Org/en/d/ Cheese/10. HTML 3. It is a way of protecting innocent people or preventing from future attacks. By torturing, it provides the safety of many lives in the world. Torture is only way to get information quickly enough to possibly prevent from any future attacks. By getting information, they are able to get ready and save many innocent lives. http:// www. Here. Org/index. PH? Base_id=134 4. A way of punishing criminals. Being tortured is better than not being able to spend the rest of your life. Life sentence is not enough for criminals who did something terrible, they should be tortured and make them regret for what they did. http:// www. Springfield. Key. IL. Us/schools/Springfield/Elis/Torture. HTML 5. It is a way of comforting people. There are people and organizations that are willing to hurt anyone to get their own way. The nation needs to feel safe to live a happy, undisturbed life. http:// held. Disconnecting. Org/en/d/Cheese/10. HTML Torture is wrong. Yes, torture may be wrong, but if by torturing someone and getting all the information needed to save innocent lives, then we must use torture to get everything we need to save lives.   The risk of torturing an innocent. I believe in torture if there is certain evidence that the person is not innocent and is or was involved in criminal activity that will endanger innocent lives. Torture is cruel. Yes, torture may be cruel, but if by torturing someone and getting all the everything we need to save lives and prevent form anything awful happening. Torture is very important under certain circumstances. Torture is a way to get information out of criminals who refuse to speak, we are able to give the criminals the experience of whatever pain they give to the victims, it is a way of protecting many innocent lives and preventing from any future attacks, being tortured is better than not living, and it is a way of comforting people.

Galvanic or Voltaic Cell Definition

Galvanic or Voltaic Cell Definition A galvanic cell is a cell where chemical reactions between dissimilar conductors connected through an electrolyte and a salt bridge produce electric energy. A galvanic cell can also be powered by spontaneous oxidation-reduction reactions. Essentially, a galvanic cell channels the electrical energy produced by the electron transfer in a redox reaction. The electrical energy or current may be sent to a circuit, such as in a television or light bulb. The electrode of the oxidation half-cell is the anode (-), while the electrode of the reduction half-cell is the cathode (). The mnemonic The Red Cat Ate an Ox may be used to help remember reduction occurs at the cathode and oxidation occurs at the anode. A galvanic cell is also called a  Daniel cell or a voltaic cell. How to Set Up a Galvanic Cell There are two main setups for a galvanic cell. In both cases, the oxidation and reduction half-reactions are separated and connected via a wire, which forces electrons to flow through the wire. In one setup, the half-reactions are connected using a porous disk. In the other setup, the half-reactions are connected via a salt bridge. The purpose of the porous disk or salt bridge is to allow ions to flow between the half-reactions without much mixing of the solutions. This maintains charge neutrality of the solutions. The transfer of electrons from the oxidation half-cell to the reduction half-cell leads to a buildup of negative charge in the reduction half-cell and of positive charge in the oxidation half-cell. If there were no way for ions to flow between the solution, this charge build-up would oppose and half the electron flow between the anode and cathode.

DB Q#4 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

DB Q#4 - Assignment Example Section 504 contains three alternate prongs based on a three criteria (Zirkel, 2009 P.1, L 3-10). The first prong is for individuals who have; a) a mental or physical impairment that; b) substantially limits; c) a major life activity. The second and third parts are for people who are not currently meeting these three criteria but have a record of or are regarded as meeting the requirements. The office of civil rights (OCR) is the department within the education department that enforces and administers section 504 in K-12 school setting. They are vocal in the interpretation of the second and third prongs in relation to learners. They have also clarified the regarded as and record of points to provide protection against exclusions. OCR has also ensured that students under the first prong are entitled to a free and appropriate education (Zirkel, 2009 P.1, L 11-26). The Americans with Disabilities Act properly covers the deafness disability. It has identified deafness as a condition that substantially limits hearing and also states that hearing is a major life activity. The act has had positive effects on deaf people within public accommodations by ensuring that they are not discriminated against, for example to enter certain premises (Steinberg, 2013 Paragraph 3). The ADA together with ADAAA fails to recognize partial hearing as a disability. Under ADAs definition of disability, the only issue found in people with one deaf ear is that they have difficulty hearing in noisy surroundings. The definition according to ADA means that partial deafness does not substantially limit the person’s abilities, the ruling is evident in the Christine Mengel case (Steinberg, 2013 P.2, Paragraph

Marketing Management Strategies Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4750 words

Marketing Management Strategies Analysis - Essay Example Multi-domestic strategy is often pursued by food, beverage, clothing and fashion industries where a country by countryapproach is undertaken to satisfy the tastes and needs, laws and regulations of particular markets. The concept of multi-domestic strategy is mainly of ‘we were successful in the home market, lets export the management talent and processes, not necessarily the product, to accommodate another market’ (Cavusgil, Knight, & Riesenberger 2007, Chapter 11)FeaturesMulti-domestic strategy is most suited for franchises, subsidiaries and joint venture type businesses. The multi-domestic strategy has decentralized authority with substantialautonomy at each business. Using a multi-domestic strategy means that the organization is accommodating the local needs and tastes of each individual country, hence producing a customized product for each of its different markets. Control and authority is de-centralized to each of the different locations in order to facilitate dec ision making based on the local needs and requirements.This strategy is most useful when large differences are evident between countries such as cultural, language, religious and major ethnic differences. A multi-domestic strategy value chain means that each of the functions of Research and Development, Marketing and Distribution will be done at a local level in each country. Each of the country managers is highly independent entrepreneurswho enjoy their room for autonomy and responsibility and do not have much incentive. to share their knowledge and tactics with managers elsewhere. The managers recognize and emphasize the market differences that vary from country to country and are often allowed subsidies by the internationalizing company to vary products, services and business functions to meet the needs of the individual markets specifically. Competition varies on a country to country basis and each subsidiary country has its own set of competitor firms. Industries that havecompetition on a country

Robin Hood Case Analysis Essay Example for Free

Robin Hood Case Analysis Essay Robin Hood Case Analysis BY JAZZY08 In the Robin Hood case, we can easily apply the principles of a business organization. Robin was the CEO of the Merrymen. He made all important decisions and a few lieutenants serve in roles that have been delegated such as information gathering, discipline, finances and provisioning. These make up the top management in the organization. This is associated with the Fayolism theory developed by Henri Fayol who proposed that managers perform particular functions for the growth and success of the organization. The four tasks that have been delegated as well as Robin Hoods personal vendetta against the Sheriff serve as the basis for many problems encountered by the Merrymen. First year, did well because they were a small organization experiencing little problems, growth was steady, revenues were consistent due to stealing from the rich, no major competitive forces were established in the industry and Robin Hood and the Merry men had the support of the stakeholders (peasants and farmers) because the men saw to it that the people were taken care of as well as their equal hate for the Sheriff . According to Henri Mintzberg what is expected of a manager is described through management roles. Robin as the CEO possesses the decisional roles which entails the important decision making and choices. The Merrymen acquire informational roles through information gathering and finances as a few of their delegated tasks and finally, the peasants and farmers possess the interpersonal skills that are very symbolic in nature because of their absolute interest and support in the efforts made by Robin and the Merrymen. Their peasants and farmers are the main reason for their formation rob the rich-give to the poor). Over the years, Robin Hood was faced with many issues that needs to be addressed. He believed that the strength and manpower of any army was in its numbers and so the band is growing too large with insufficient resources to sustain it. There is also a decline in the Merrymens vigilance as it is so hard to keep track with the larger numbers which may cause them to be unprepared if the Sheriff were to place a surprise attack on them and discipline is hard to enforce resulting in less control. This issue needs to be resolved in order for the men to work well with one another before a case of mutiny outbreaks (Robert. L. Katz; human skills). The Sheriff is growing stronger and becoming better organized because of his owerful allies as well as the support of the evil Prince John. Just as the numbers of Merrymen are growing, travelers are beginning to find alternate routes through the forest to avoid apprehension, causing a decline in the bands revenue stream. This is the major problem that Robin Hood needs to overcome. If he cannot steal the rich peoples money, he has nothing to give to the poor which can cause a strain in the relationship with his stakeholders. Also, with no money, Mr. Hood will not be able to maintain his group of Merrymen, and they will become weaker making themselves susceptible to attacks from the Sheriff. The two satellite problems facing Robin Hood are the intensive threat of competitive rivals and threats to suppliers. The core problem is rivalry, Prince John and the Sherriff are Robins main rivals and pose a definite threat to his operation. They are in direct competition with each other, and their actions have to constantly be monitored which is going to be difficult due to the their persistent efforts to capture Robin Hood and his Merrymen. Suppliers are a high level threat, because at any point those who support Robin Hood could be captured by Prince John and the Sherriff, thus cutting off supplies. Also, the bargaining power of suppliers is high simply because of the business Robin is involved in(robbing). His business is illegal and therefore a high level threat to anyone who supplies to him. Threat from buyers is currently a low level threat because an objective of Robins is to give to the poor. They have no reason to pose any threat unless at some time Robin Hood begins to tax them. The threat of new entry is also low given the legality of this endeavor. Individuals will likely be more willing to Join Robin Hood as opposed to forming their own faction. Although it is bviously more common to have a threat of new entry when in control of the market while making a profit, in this particular situation it is relatively low given Robin Hoods rapport within the forest. The threat of substitute products has been identified as a low to moderate threat. The residents of the forest are assumed to be the customers. The variable that make them a threat include: the perceived possibility that Robin may fail. In the event of this transpiring, the most probable alternative would be the majority of the people leaving the forest. This is a low to moderate threat because lthough Robins current status is relatively stable; his customers face the real possibility of being forced into making alternative decisions. This, along with the changes in the external environment is making the bands business model obsolete. These changes must be addressed along with the structuring and training of the ever-growing band of Merrymen. In short, Robin needs to select a new strategy and rally the Merrymen behind the cause because the current strategy is becoming timeworn at a hurried pace. Robin Hood and his men need a new mission, objectives, and strategy. Their vision is belonging to a kingdom with an honourable King who treats everyone fairly. His new mission should be to free the people from Prince John and return King Richard to the throne. Robin Hood and his band are in need of a fresh strategy in response to external happenings. For instance in the situation where the travelers are beginning to avoid the forest, despite added cost and inconvenience, to protect their belongings. Also, Robins plan to force the Sheriff out of Nottingham by causing unrest is not working. Indeed, the Sheriff is using powerful connections to apply added pressure to Robin and the Merrymen. To further complicate matters, some of the barons that appointed Prince John to the throne are now campaigning to clandestinely raise the ransom to free King Richard. These barons have offered Robin Hood the chance to help in this mission in exchange for future amnesty. While the return of King Richard and the ousting of Prince John is what Robin wants, the risks involved in such a deal are very high. The mission of the gang is rob from the rich and give to the poor. However, the true goal of the organization is to remove the amoral Sheriff from office, as evidenced by the consideration of Robin to institute a fixed transit tax. A more appropriate mission would be rid Nottingham of the corrupt King John and Sheriff. The gang also needs to outline some objectives, as this has not been done in the past. For example, each Merryman shall produce enough loot each day to pay for his own food. The band does need a new organizational structure as a result of the lead for change in structure would possibly be promoting more lieutenants in order to monitor the men more effectively and keep the men clear of their strategy. Maybe the group could form smaller camps that are part of the whole for organizational stability and spread across the entire forest of Nottingham. Robin Hood could Join with the barons to collect the ransom to release King Richard, receive amnesty and a resolution to the campaign against the Sheriff. It is risky because the barons could offset his efforts and if the plan proves to be unsuccessful, Prince John will unleash his vicious and volatile side to ensure Robin Hoods demise, but it is less risky than doing what he is presently doing which is nothing. In assisting them, he has more support against the Sheriff. If he continues to do nothing he will eventually end up caught by the sheriff, run out of supplies or mutiny will break out among his men. Robin Hood must weigh the benefits and risks of the following : forming a strategic alliance with the barons to rescue King Richard , expanding the organization into areas outside Sherwood Forest ,killing the Sheriff as a defensive strategic move or switching to a fixed transit tax as an offensive strategy move. A SWOT analysis will help determine some strategic alternatives and how the band can attempt to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals. Robin Hood can use the SWOT analysis to identify where he is strong and vulnerable, where he should defend and attack by scanning both internal and external environments. The group has grown spontaneously in its numbers. Manpower is the largest resource any group can have and the number of the Merrymen is formidable. Robin Hood is also a strong leader. For any one-single man to organize a group of this caliber, strong leadership skills must be present. The brand recognition the Merrymen posses has also been a strength. Because the group is so popular, it has allowed them to make a difference in their community. This popularity has also gained the group access to the resources of the surrounding towns and communities. The cost of training and producing their product is also a trength as well as their skills of being well trained fghting men. According to Robert. L. Katz, managers need three essential skills, in being well trained men, they must acquire Job- specific knowledge and technigues needed to proficiently perform work tasks (technical skills) They simply steal to obtain the capital they need and training costs are small outside the capital needed to supply the arms and feed the Merrymen. Most of the combat supplies are probably stolen as well. Moreover, new recruits are coming in and the men are being reunited in the enmity against the Sheriff. The first major weakness I have identified is Robin Hoods personal grudge with the sheriff. This has a great potential to cloud his overall view and influence judgments that may otherwise may not be for the good of the group. Even though the group was born from this idea, it has seemingly surpassed Just over-throwing the sheriff and transformed to a scope much larger. This personal vendetta may not take this into account and cause ill-formed decisions. The second major weakness I have identified is the alliances Robin Hood has made. This problem encompasses a few of the other weaknesses the Merrymen have. At first, the recruitment looked for viable candidates that fit a certain criteria. Now, the Merrymen will accept anyone who is willing to serve the cause hence there is a lack in familiarity with all the organizational members. Because of this single change in recruitment procedures, the now laxed recruitment process, another issue has arisen; exceeding the food capacity of the surrounding lands. This is simply a numerical problem that is encountered when you let anyone Join a group that relies so heavily on natural resources. The food shortage has also resulted in a depletion of the Merrymens financial reserves. Since the land can no longer provide the resources the group needs, they have turned to trade and purchasing. The large number of the group has also caused a space problem. The next major sets of weaknesses I have identified are a result of the looting and raids the Merrymen participate in. This raised the question to Robin Hood of what alternatives are available to help the group raise funds. Robin Hood favored taxation of the travelers and local towns people rather than looting and raiding but this concept was met with much resistance. His lower management argued that taxation would turn their closest allies against them and ould virtually put them in the same category as the Sheriff. A major opportunity present that is not coupled with the weaknesses the Merrymen have is the proposition of freeing King Richard. Securing the release of King Richard, if successful, would be very beneficial to the Merrymen. This is potentially another source of income for the Merrymen and would shine beneficial political light on the group. If the group were to fail, the retribution would be detrimental. Instead of fghting Just one sheriff and his men, the band would potentially have to take on the entire army commanded by Prince John. The opportunities present are forming an alliance with the barons in order to bring King Richard back to Nottingham and expanding the Merryman into the forest spreading revenue base. The sheriff, of course, was the source of the major threats to the Merrymen. At first the campaign was successful but over time the sheriff and his forces are growing larger and better organized causing increased direct competition. They have received the funding they need to disrupt the Merrymens operations. The plan the group first used forecasted that a perpetual state of unrest would cause the Sheriff to be removed from his osition, however the opposite happened and the sheriff used the unrest to secure reinforcements and funding for the campaign. This was a result of his close strategic alliance with Prince John. Moreover, Prince John is very paranoid and could act irrationally by sending his spies to offset the Merrymen. Additionally, aligning with the barons is very risky as they could deceive Robin. Several recommendations have been developed for the Merrymen to aid in the success of the group. It is the belief that the current strategy is one that can again be successful but many changes need o be implemented to ensure this strategys success. I recommend that Robin Hood align with the barons. He should help them collect the ransom that would free King Richard. In order for this to work, Robin Hood would have to sell this idea to the Merrymen and the farmers and the townspeople and change the policy of outright confiscation of goods. He has to convince them that the fixed transit tax will go towards their Kings ransom. Robin acquires the conceptual skills required of any manager to perform proficiently according to Katz, he is looking at the bigger picture which he believes everyone will benefit from. conceptual skills). This will help everyone feel loyal and patriotic to one common cause. The citizens already do not like the Prince John and they would likely unite together and support any strategy lieutenants to help the already overworked ones that he has, given the state of discipline and other problems. Robin has considered killing the Sheriff but it would not end the campaign because it has grown beyond the scope of Just the Sheriff, but decided against it because it would only satisfy his thirst for revenge without improving the matter. The next Sheriff would undoubtedly be Just as bad if not worse ecause the Sheriffs association is devoid of values. Also, with the Sheriffs high- powered friends and increasing resources, the chances of succeeding in the slaying are dim because this would more than likely anger Prince John into dealing out very harsh punishment that could terminate Robin Hood and his men. If there is an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the Sheriff, retribution will be fierce. The Merrymen need to build off the strengths it has. The quality of the manpower is an area of concern. Implementation of the original recruitment process or an advanced recruitment process is the first necessary fix. Just letting anyone be a participant of the group has been the source to several of the issues plaguing the Merrymen. Candidates should have a particular set of skills to allow entry. If there is a food shortage, pre-screen candidates for skills such as farming. Discipline has been identified as another issue. This can be eliminated through the better screening process and better training. For this all to work, there must be a better management system put in place. The external threats, weaknesses and opportunities the Merrymen have are formidable but proper action can be used to manage these. The ack of food and provisions can first be solved by recruiting farmers and hunter/ gathers to the group who solely focus on these issues as well as enforcing that the men produce enough loot each day for his own food. This would also help eliminate the expenses the group incurs as trading and bartering for provision could be gradually eliminated. Since revenues are in decline, any money-saving action is beneficial. Concurrent with this issue, expansion of the raiding area is a must. Though Robin feels as though he is losing control of the band, he admits to not knowing half of the men and is finding it hard to enforce discipline. They have the opportunity of limiting the size of the band which maintains discipline and solves food scarcity which basically curtails growth. This strategic move will deem them weak and powerless against the Sheriff and Prince John. The more manpower they have, the greater chance they have of carrying out the mission. The band should extend their operations throughout Sherwood Forest in order to rejuvenate revenues, which at present are in decline. They may also be able to access supplies more readily which previously would have been obtained from outlying villages, thus reducing costs. This also allows them the opportunity to continue robbing in an adjacent region which is consistent with the original organization and its growing size. The part of the group that conducts raids should also work very closely with the intelligence gathering portion. Once again, proper recruitment and training will result in a part of the group who can focus on this important aspect. The intelligence can be used to know when and where raids are conducted and what moves the sheriff is making. However, all the groups need to be properly trained in combat for when the need arises. These groups should continue to be managed separately.. In this instance, time is of the essence. As the Sheriff of Nottingham and his men learn Sherwood Forests resources have been depleted by the large amounts of recruits that inhabit the area, and this has seriously drained the bands financial reserves, however, this does give the men a greater asset in their numbers. The case seems unclear about where the Merrymen see themselves over the next few years, but one thing is clear, if they wish to survive, they will have to take immediate action. If the band is successful overthrowing Prince John, they will have to work in close onjunction with King Richard to shape a society which functions equally for members of all socio-economic classes (assuming this is their goal). The central issue faced by Robin Hood and his Merrymen is how to win their fght against the Sheriff of Nottingham. We recommend partaking in this venture though because we see the benefits outweighing the risks. However, this must be a carefully planned and executed venture. Robin Hood and his band should organize an attack on Prince John in order to eliminate the Sheriffs authority over Nottingham and its occupants. If successful, the Merrymen will return to their law abiding life.

Comparing Ridley Scotts Blade Runner and Philip K. Dicks Do Androids

Comparing Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" and Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? How do we know that we are human and, if we are human, what does it mean to be human? These two philosophical inquiries are explored in great depth in Ridley Scott's film "Blade Runner", and of course the text of Philip K. Dick's wonderful novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? on which the film is based. Most would agree that these themes exist in the novel, but a handful of critics and academics have some doubt as to their presence in the film. If one examines both the film and the text, one will realize that they both serve to support the same motifs, but do so in different fashions. Many critics argue that the awesome visuals overwhelm the contents of the plot and theme, but I argue that the visuals depicting Los Angeles in the year 2019 help to advance the themes. Viewers often miss the human side of the story or lack there of, and may object to the strong visuals for this reason. It can be argued that the visuals serve to portray a dehumanized world where only subtle signs of humanity's existence are dispersed throughout, where existentialist notions such as what being human is and what being human means are not easily answered. To briefly summarize the plot, Harrison Ford stars as Rick Deckard, a cop from the future (blade runner) who tracks down and kills replicants, which are basically artificially created human beings. In other films, they are usually referred to as androids. Specifically, his assignment is to find and kill five replicants who have escaped from an off-world colony and come to earth. The most interesting parts of "Blade Runner" are Deckard's interactions with the various replicants, especially Ra... ... also feel sympathy for Deckard. The film illustrates that both are in a struggle to become more human, Deckard because he is slowly losing his humanity, and the androids because they have never had the experience of humanity, but desire it. This sympathy for both entities further reinforces the blur that Scott is creating between the android and the human. Because the film does this so effectively, we can easily ask the question, "what makes a human more deserving of life than an android?" Essentially, when all is said and done, "Blade Runner" is really a film about questions, questions that we should ask ourselves of humanity. What is a human? What does it mean to be human? Do humans have more of a right to life than replicants? Have humans and androids become the same thing? It is not so important that one answers these questions, but that he or she asks them.

Food Politics

The ways in which the food system is failing us are numerous. It is failing some in quantity, while failing others in quality. The only members of the food system that are not being exploited are the corporate food producers, and that is because they are the exploiters in this equation. Just like the schoolyard that we are all familiar with, there are two groups on the food system playground; the bullied and the bullies. In comparison to the schoolyard example, the bullies are in the minority, consisting here of transnational corporations and other large organizations with one goal in mind: profit maximization.In the majority are the bullied, consisting of not only the lowly consumers such as you and I, but also small farms and even government organizations. While the present food system has many flaws that have led to this toxic playground relationship, there are solutions. We hope to clearly demonstrate where the food system is today, how this present food system is failing us, con nections to the Antony and Samuelson text, and lastly solutions. The term â€Å"food politics† refers to the political aspects of production, control, regulation, inspection, and distribution of food.Since biblical times, the government has played a dominant role in the production and control of food. The book of Genesis states: â€Å"the Egyptian pharaoh took 20 percent of all food production from his farmers as tax† (47:24). This demonstrates the regulatory role that the government has had in food production since the beginning of civilization. The key parties in food politics are consumers, farmers, food safety and quality regulators, retailers and the state. Today, customers demand affordable food, thus placing increased pressure on producers to mediate expenditures.There is enough food to feed the world, and there has been for many decades. In 2007, the Food and Agriculture Organization calculated that there is enough food to feed the world 1. 5x over (Holt-Gimene z and Patel 2009). While there is adequate food to end world hunger, the problem continues due to greed and unequal power distribution. International policies by the World Health Organization (WHO) have attempted to put an end to world hunger, but because the outcomes of these policies do not benefit the bottom lines of he state and of corporations, they are not supported (Paarlberg 2011). In our own backyard, the Canadian government has removed restrictions surrounding property ownership regulations, thus facilitating the redistribution of Canadian farmland. As far back as 1969, there were recommendations from the federal government to reduce the number of Canadian farmers by 50 to 65 percent, encouraging the movement toward a factory-farming model (Paarlberg, 2011). Factory farming is a model recognized for its increased efficiency and output in farming. This is when the quality of food diminishes.Low quality food is something every consumer encounters on a daily basis, however th e ability to make decisions surrounding food quality choices is greatly dependent on economic standing. Despite the want to purchase high quality food, this may not be financially feasible. Food imported and exported to Canada is inspected and regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is â€Å"internationally recognized for its standards and principles† (CFIA). There are two major issues facing the CFIA. Firstly, their standards and principals are comparable to those of the United States, the most obese nation on earth and not a worthy role model.Secondly, as of August 2011, meat inspection methods have moved to a two-tier system due to budget cuts. The CFIA cannot afford to regulate meat nationwide and as such have relegated provincial sales and slaughter to that specific level of government and with it the ability to enforce consistent countrywide standards. With common origins in the capitalist system the agro-food sector is arguably one of the most globalize d in the various spheres of economic activity. Corporations have already been identified as one of the largest players in the food system, with the majority of these businesses being Agri-Transnational Corporations (TNCs).This is following two decades of economic liberalization, allowing Agri-TNCs to develop enormously in size, power and influence. Bayer, Monsanto and DuPont are a few of the better-known agri-transnational corporations, the key players in this globalization and domination game (ETC Group 2008). In total, there are six large agro chemical manufacturers that â€Å"control nearly 75% of the global pesticide market, [and] are also seed industry giants. † thus creating an oligopoly (ETC Group 2008). A small collection of large companies produces the majority of goods, giving consumers the ability to choose the best of the worst.This allows the corporations belonging to the oligopoly to collaborate on price, both at a consumer and employee level, protecting their p rofit margins by continually oppressing the consumers and workers into either accepting the offered price, or receiving nothing. Farmers are often bound by lengthy contracts to buy farm inputs from, and sell a specified crop, to the same corporation. This translates into farmers being held at ransom at every step of production. They are exceedingly dependent on a â€Å"corporate package† while denying communities control over their own food and future.The package consists of high-cost inputs including synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides and unsustainable genetically modified seeds that do not germinate as easily, ensuring the continuous cycle of dependency. The push towards industrial, high-input agriculture is driving farmers into debt. They must take out loans in order to afford modified seeds, and more effective fertilizers and pesticides. The vast majority of food related TNCs share the same quality of holding global investments in the food industry and controlling much of how food is grown, processed, distributed and purchased.The aforementioned oligopoly creates a relationship of dependence. Both the consumers and employees are dependent on these TNCs on a daily basis. Because TNCs dominate the industry in these countries, and government regulation is lacking, the reserve army of labour is highly exploitable. If these workers are fired from the TNCs, there are few other employers with which to seek work. From a consumer perspective, most all of the products available in retail outlets are produced by these TNCs, with little choice of products from other companies. This market domination combined with the ollaboration between TNCs for price setting in a given market creates the perfect storm for these parties to be marginalized. As illustrated in Figure 1, ten companies own the majority of food products that we consume, but due to the fact that they have many subsidiaries – each with different branding- consumers have a false sense of choice. Industrial food and farming practices not only deny local communities and indigenous people control over their own water, forests, minerals, biodiversity, and land, but also devalues their local wisdom and knowledge of farming practices.This industrialization clearly abuses both the area around local citizens as well as the citizens themselves. While these parties, the majority of the population, are disadvantaged as our food system industrializes, corporations and governments benefit by way of increased profits and domination. Implications of this change are at the expense of depriving peasants and small food producers around the world of their basic human rights while limiting their existing livelihood, culture, health, and self-determination. A growing trend in recent years has been agro fuel production.We are seeing a partnership of multinationals such as BP global for the conversion of land to cash crop rather than subsistence production. Revisited again under the cont ract-growing model, Monsanto has created a situation in which farmers cannot produce food for sustenance, but rather they must employ monocropping. This increases dependency on purchased inputs and on foreign markets that communities have no say in, and therefore threatening local subsistence and food security. â€Å"Agro fuels, also referred to as biofuels, are fuels derived from food crops such as corn, soya, canola, sugar cane, and oil. (Martini and Shiva 2008). Massive deforestation in Brazil due to monocropping for agro fuels has caused the displacement of indigenous peoples and devastating effects on the climate. â€Å"The FAO argues [that] agro fuels account for 10% of food price rise, while the IMF and IFPRI claim 30%, and the World Bank estimated a contribution of between 65% and 75%. † (Chakraborrty and Phillips 2008). This information is essential when evaluating the impact that agro fuels have in Brazil and in many other countries and communities.In Ending Hunger in Our Lifetime, food security is defined as â€Å"access by all people at all times to enough food for an active healthy life† (Runge, Senauer, Pardey, and Rosegrant 2003:15). The World Health Organization (WHO) expands on this concept and presents the three pillars of food security: (1) Availability – having a consistent supply and sufficient quantity of food, (2) Accessibility – having the resources to ensure a nutritious diet, and (3) Food Use – appropriate use centered around having rudimentary knowledge of nutrition (Schanbacher 2010:12).When discussing food politics, a central issue is the imminent threat to food security. Food insecurity is encouraged by many potential risk factors including, but not limited to, globalization, population growth, trade policies, food aid, a loss of agricultural productivity, and the genetic modification of food. Thomas Malthus, an 18th century economist and author of â€Å"On the Principle of Population† wr ote that â€Å"food is necessary to the existence of man [and] that the passion between the sexes is necessary and will [never cease]. † (Malthus 1798).He then suggested that while population will continue to grow in a geometrical ratio (1,2,4,8, etc†¦), that land subsistence only grows in an arithmetic sequence (1,3,5,7, etc†¦) and is therefore unable to support the population, thus posing a threat to food security. The powerful forces within the food system oppose this Malthusian theory with the argument that the rate of population growth is slowing, which overall is true, but population growth continues to soar in the poorest countries; the countries where food insecurity is the biggest concern.Figure 2: Population Growth 1990-2100 PopulationIncrease (%) 1990202521001990-2100 Developing Countries4. 087. 0710. 20150 Developed Countries1. 211. 401. 5024 World5. 308. 4711. 70121 Source: United Nations 1993. Doha, Qatar. It aimed to promote trade liberalization as a means of rendering developing countries less vulnerable to food insecurity. The reduction of international trade protections and tariffs after the 1994 Uruguay Round led to the rapid transfer of products throughout the world, but not at an equal rate or proportion.When speaking on these imbalances, the Doha Declaration stated: We agree that special and differential treatment for developing countries shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the schedules of concessions and commitments and as appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development (WTO 2001).These imbalances were prevalent after the 2008 economic crisis as more developed, and thus powerful, countries were able to protect themselves from loss of profit through restrictive trade policies. By limiting i mports, which tend to come from developing nations, developed countries were able to mitigate damages. Take for example the differing trends in Asia and Africa present in Figure 3; In Asia, rates of undernourishment were stable post 2008, while they rose significantly in Africa (FAO 2011).As defined by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), food aid is â€Å" a response to address the dietary and nutritional needs of [vulnerable] populations, [to help] and enhance [their] livelihoods and become self-reliant, all essential for sustainable development. † (CIDA n. d. ). It is important to establish that food aid is not the answer to food security and that there are many biases that exist within its system. Amongst others, food aid has been criticized for being donor directed, promoting domestic interests, being driven by exporters, and that development is not the primary goal.This criticism has led some to refer to food aid as â€Å"food dumping† as the ine xpensive food being offered to poorer nations at highly subsidized prices undercuts the local farmers who cannot compete with these prices. They are then driven out of their jobs, which further slants the market in favour of large producers such as those from the US and Europe (Runge, Senauer, Pardey and Rosegrant 2003:125). The USA currently provides approximately 60% of all international food aid and its primary recipients are Peru, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Jordan, Egypt and the Philippines.Given their massive â€Å"donations†, many American agricultural lobby groups hoped food aid would lure recipients into dependence, and that when taken away, the beneficiaries would be forced to become paying customers. In an attempt to avoid entering into the coercive relationship that is food aid, some countries have found alternative strategies to deal with food shortages. One method is an alteration of diet from eating fewer meals each day to consuming less desirable â€Å" famine foods† and selling non-essential assets in order to purchase food (Paarlberg 2010:72).In Food Aid: A cause, or symptom, of development failure, or an instrument for success? Srinivasan asserts that food aid â€Å"blunts incentives for domestic food production and hence increases the probability of long-term dependency on donors; or that by alleviating food shortages, it enables the regime in power to postpone, if not abandon, politically costly economic reforms. † (1993). In line with this assertion comes the proposition to replace traditional food aid with a one-time distribution of farming equipment, livestock, and money in a bid to return people to their previously productive lifestyles.One of the ways in which donors hold power over recipient countries is through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), promoted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). SAPs are imposed under the guise of assisting countries in bringing their â€Å"nationa l macroeconomic conditions to a place where [they] can benefit from regional and international trade agreements. † (Schanbacher 2010:14). A SAP will require countries to limit their social safety nets and to enter basic necessities such as food, water and land into the private sector.These prescriptions require countries to reduce social safety nets and introduce survival necessities like food, water and land to the commodity market in order to receive the loans they need (Samuelson and Antony 2012:246). These specifications have led to increasing food insecurity, a lack of social protections (namely health care and education) and a widening of class inequality. One manifestation of a lack of food security in a given society may take the form of riots.Food riots are caused by a jump in food prices, which results from crop failure, ineffective storage methods and hoarding (Lang and Heasman 2004:12). In a desperate attempt to obtain nutrients, the public may become desperate and frustrated enough to attack shops, farms and government buildings. In a recent Globe and Mail article entitled Food riots: What creates the anger? Evan Fraser, co-author of the book Empires of Food: Feast, Famine and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations wrote that â€Å"it's the sense of injustice rather than price volatility that ultimately causes the rioting†.In 2011, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, the world’s largest exporter of wheat, ordered over 800,000 tonnes of the grain and stockpiled it in an attempt to avoid civil unrest. His plan failed and infuriated citizens took to the streets in protest (Globe and Mail 2011). If food prices continue to rise at their current rate, we can only assume that the frequency and intensity of foot riots will increase. With profit being the primary goal of most involved in the agricultural system, monocropping has been employed by many of the world’s food producers.As defined by Schanbacher in The Politics of Food (2010: 56), monocropping refers to the practice of growing the same crop year after year without rotation to other crops. This method is economically rewarding for farms as it produces higher yields, allows them to invest in crop-specific equipment and because many governments provide subsidies to farms which utilize this method. By continuously growing a single crop, (namely soybeans, wheat and corn), the land becomes depleted of its nutrients and therefore highly dependent on fertilizers and incapable of supporting vegetative life.Those employing this method often choose to abandon the land after leeching it of its nutrients, as it is less expensive than working to maintain it. Furthermore, just as mortality rates in the Native American population soared after being exposed, by European settlers, to infectious diseases to which they were not immune, monocropping exposes crops to the same situation as they lose their genetic diversity. Take for example the Irish Potato Famine of 1845, whi ch occurred after potatoes were introduced in response to the suffering economy and extremely low wages of the working class.Though originally intended to serve as a supplement, potatoes swiftly became a staple of the Irish diet and when a bacteria travelled to the UK in 1845, the entire crop was wiped out. Over the next three years, one in eight Irish died of starvation, but unfortunately, many of us seem not to have learnt our lesson (Nestle 2007:247). In fact, the US government currently offers substantial subsidies to those farming the primary monocropping products: corn, soybeans and wheat. When discussing public wellbeing in the United States of America, one often references the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The FDA’s mandate is to promote safety through ensuring that: conventional foods, dietary supplements, and drugs are safe and accurately labeled, and to ensure that drugs have benefits confirmed in clinical trials (Nestle 2007:227). Despite being an American in stitution, the FDA has many international interests and is considered the de facto standard around the world. In 2009, President Barack Obama called the FDA’s failure to inspect more than 95% of food processing plants â€Å"a hazard to public health† (Paarlberg 2010:158).Many members of the general public have called for additional funding to support more complete inspection coverage, which would alleviate the significant pressure that is currently being placed on small and organic farms that cannot compete with their large competitors with ties to the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration is also responsible for researching and publishing information about the safety of different foods. Of particular concern are the potential risks associated with the consumption of Genetically Modified foods.Despite claims that there are no studies showing links between GM foods and health risks, in 1998 the FDA was forced to publicize more than 44,000 internal documents noting links with allergies, toxins, new diseases, anti-biotic resistant diseases, nutritional problems and cancer causing agents (Paarlberg 2010:168). In 1961 the World Health Organization instated the Codex Alimentarius Commission whose purpose was to create international food safety standards, but to this day there are still many dangerous chemicals in use (Lang, Heasman 2004:48).Though guidelines exist to limit the use of chemicals in genetically modified foods, little is done about those used in animal feed and other by-products that are eventually consumed by humans. Due to bioaccumulation, the â€Å"progressive increase in the amount of a substance in an organism or part of an organism which occurs because the rate of intake exceeds the organism’s ability to remove the substance from the body. † the effect of these toxins only increases as the products arrive at the top of the food chain: humans (U. S. Geological Survey: 2007).These pesticides provide a pathway for Persiste nt Organic Pollutants, which we store in our body fat and which have a destructive impact on humans, wildlife, land and water (Lang and Heasman 2004: 225). In fact, POP’s have been linked to everything from cancer to reproductive and birth defects to neurological diseases. Though food producers are expected to follow CDCA (Centre for Disease Control Agency) guidelines, this only protects consumers if they ingest a single portion of an individual item (Lang and Heasman 2004: 226,227).Foods with the highest levels of POP’s include: butter, melons, cucumbers, peanuts, popcorn, spinach and squash (Lang and Heasman 2004:227). This poses a major problem as even if foods are individually within the CDCA guidelines, collectively they pose major risks. With the recent trend towards â€Å"Green Politics†, the amount of pesticides used has decreased and due to biased education the general public has assumed this to mean that our food is safer. Unfortunately, the toxicity o f pesticides used has increased approximately 10-100x since 1975 thus putting consumers at great risk (Lang and Heasman 2004:227).One cannot discuss Genetically Modified foods without referring to the Monsanto Corporation. In 2001, Monsanto was listed as #3 in the world when it came to agrochemical sales and many have labeled it â€Å"the worlds most unethical company† (Nestle 2007:101). They are a world leader in the production of genetically modified foods and they created the highly poisonous herbicide Roundup which is incredibly damaging to both ecology and humans. Unfortunately, Monsanto, and many other companies like them, have taken advantage of their positions of power to bias the public in favour of their products.In a 1999-2000 American Dietetic Association nutrition fact sheet sponsored by Monsanto, they said, â€Å"The U. S. government has a well co-ordinated system to ensure that new agricultural biotechnology products are safe for the environment and to animal and human health† (Nestle 2007:113). Given that the ADA represents the interests of 70,000 nutritionists many see their â€Å"fact sheets† to be trustworthy, but we need to be more wary as many ADA certified nutritionists are in fact employed by companies like the Monsanto Corporation (Nestle 2007:113).In Das Kapital, Karl Marx presents the idea of commodity fetishism; that in a capitalist society, money and commodities are fetishes that inhibit our ability to see the reality of a given situation because we view them as relationships between goods as opposed to a relationship between people. In the case of food security, commodity fetishism prevents people from acknowledging that someone was exploited to produce a given product and that our choices as consumers support this unfair treatment (Thomson 2010:164-166).This purposeful distancing of the owners from their means of production allows them, and as a result, the average consumer, to disengage from the food system. Raj Patel, the author of Stuffed and Starved connects this to one of the three pillars of food security- food accessibility- and says that â€Å"the fantasy of those not willing to pay has removed the need for compassion from food economics, as if to say that it is someone’s choice to go hungry as opposed to their inability to afford or meet the high asking price. . This enables society to believe that â€Å"our choices at the checkout don’t take away the choices of those who grow our food (2008). In Power and Resistance, Sandy Miller discusses the idea of food as inspiration and imperative for social change. She outlines ways in which the food system is failing and some potential solutions. Amongst them, Miller focuses on modification of land use practices, ownership of food infrastructure, accessibility to land, food distribution policy, and alternative food movements.The road is long, and not well travelled, but there is hope for a revolution within our global foo d system and it rests on civil society becoming more educated and thus, engaged. We have to ask questions: Where does our food come from? What is actually in it? What constitutes a healthy diet? We have to change the way people think about food- they have to be the change. Without people standing up, asking questions, and actually practicing what they preach, nothing will change. Though land is widely considered to be a renewable resource, we must examine the veracity of this claim.Land has the capacity to renew itself, but as more infrastructure is built, less cropland is available and as a result that which remains is often exposed to overuse and abuse; as was previously explained in the instance of monocropping. Furthermore, due to this leeching of nutrients from the soil, erosion rates have accelerated to the point where land reformation cannot occur and genetically modified seeds and fertilizers (such as Monsanto’s RoundUp) are being used more prevalently.When crops are grown on land that has been leeched of its nutrients, the produce yielded from there will too be nutrient-weak; one example being genetically modified rice. This rice has vitamin A added to it, however to meet your recommended daily intake of vitamin A, one would need to consume fifty bowls of (Norton 2012). Miller presents the idea of land reserves as an important route in the labyrinth of solutions. A land reserve is a â€Å"zone in which agriculture is recognized as the priority use, [where] farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are controlled† (ALC 2012).Miller references one very successful case study; British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The ALR covers almost 5 million hectares of private and public land that may be farmed, forested or vacant and any person or people intending on using this land must plan in accordance with the ALR mandate of preserving agricultural land (Samuelson and Antony 2012:257). Because the primary goal of food pr oducers is profit, they are not concerned with proper land maintenance and, as a result, the nutritional value of their goods.When discussing land, it is essential to consider its accessibility and distribution, as this is a major indicator of who maintains ownership of the food infrastructure. In a 2011 paper released by the United Nations, titled Corruption in the Land Sector, the Food and Agriculture Organizations reported that: Effective and enforceable land governance provides a necessary framework for development and an important defense against many forms of corruption. It supports food security and ensures sustainable livelihoods that are essential for people and countries that rely on land as one of their main economic, social and cultural assets.For example, empirical findings from more than 63 countries show that where corruption in land is less prevalent, it correlates to better development indicators, higher levels of foreign direct investment and increased crop yields. (FAO 2011) A national example of this â€Å"[in]effective and [un]enforceable land governance† can be seen in Ontario where the local food infrastructure has been systematically dismantled by the government as they offer payouts to farmers willing to forgo planting fruit trees in favour of more economically viable options such as real estate investments (FAO 2011).When interviewed, farmers and stakeholders proposed solutions that would â€Å"reframe the food chain from farming to processing to storage, distribution and marketing. † (Samuelson and Antony 2012:258-259). To reach the goal of more equitable distribution of, and access to land, many food movements rely on social justice and well-distributed power. These movements recognize that our current food system is in need of an egalitarian perspective on food infrastructure. Agroecology may be one of the most influential food movements thus far.This movement promotes the potential to create a new way of living in wh ich the presence of humans will not destroy our planet. Samuelson and Antony describe agro ecology as â€Å"a way of thinking in tune with an agricultural ecosystem that tests and solves problems where they arise, in the context of local pests and beneficials, climatic benefits and challenges, and the realities of locally financed and managed farming. †. Among other techniques, agroecology also involves the use of century old farming methods such as crop rotation.Crop rotation involves planting in a multi-year cycle so as to avoid depletion of nutrients, and susceptibility to pests (2012:260). La Via Campesina, a peasant organization, is dedicated to promoting food sovereignty through the use of natural resources and support of domestic markets. Canada’s National Farmer’s Union constitutes one group which makes up the 150 million members from 69 different countries. La Via Campesina’s mandate is to grant membership solely to peasants (representatives of l arge corporations are not welcome) and to ensure that power remains within the hands of the majority (Samuelson and Antony 2012:259).Another alternative to supporting these large corporations, The Farm-to-Community Movement, is presented in Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health: â€Å"this category aims to connect farmers to local communities through farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture (customers pay farmers in advance for seasonal produce), and programs that link farmers to schools, restaurants, and other institutions. † (Nestle 2007:x). Community gardens are another popular strategy that can help provide safe and nutritious food while simultaneously supporting local infrastructure.A community garden is a local plot of land worked on by a group of people who share the work, as well as the crops. In this process food is not fetishized as a commodity, instead creating an alternative to capitalism as well as providing the bene fit of healthy, local, and organic food. Acadia University features a community garden, allowing for students and community members to have the opportunity to grow their own crops. In addition to splitting the yield amongst its members, the garden supplies food to the Wheelock dining hall, along with Wolfville’s local food bank.Many have created community gardens in what space they have in their own backyards and most of these gardens function as charities. This allows people living in poverty the opportunity to eat local and organic food they may otherwise be unable to afford thus bolstering all three pillars of food security: accessibility, availability and food use. The presence of community gardens is one aspect of food relocalization; a movement which focuses on eating, growing and distributing locally as a means of lowering carbon emissions (due to shorter travel time) and of stimulating the local economy.Relocalization focuses on advocating changes in scale, ownership, and relationships from one end of the supply chain to the other. This practice is employed by communities around the world who harvest enough food to sustain themselves, but do not produce for profit. This process is concerned with feeding all members of the given community, and is considered an effective means of eradicating poverty. In 2007, chef and restaurateur Jamie Oliver founded the Pass It On food movement, which encourages healthy eating, habits through a method of education, which promotes exponential growth in its followers.His inspiration came from the British Ministry of Food’s attempt to manage food shortages by educating the public about proper nutrition during World War II (Oliver 2009:8). With this in mind, he formed his own radical movement in an effort to raise awareness and incite action to help solve the food crisis. In 2010, the largest killers in America were diet-related diseases (TEDTalks 2010). This is the fuel behind the movement’s transfer to the United States, more specifically, Huntington Beach, Virginia – the fattest town in America (Oliver 2009).He was met with widespread criticism and a general lack of acceptance due to his harsh critique of the American school system. Oliver suggests a weekly session, 30-60 minutes, to educate children on nutrition and healthy meal options (TEDTalks 2010). This solution would be both easy to implement and inexpensive, meaning the government would not have to cut any presently funded programs in order to reallocate finances. Oliver also suggests introducing food ambassadors into local supermarkets.These ambassadors would be tasked with showing consumers what to buy, how to read labels, and how to cook quick and healthy meals (TEDTalks 2010). The costs of such an initiative would be borne by either the corporations who own products sold in the supermarket or the supermarket itself. Oliver believes that â€Å"big corporations need to put food education on the top of their p riority list, and at the heart of their businesses† because a large part of change lies in their hands (TEDTalks 2010). They have a corporate responsibility to provide a new, fresh standard of food, and we, as consumers must hold them accountable.While it may feel like there is no way to avoid being failed by the food system, there is a solution to the problem that you can implement on your own, without the need to influence others. There are many publications released each year, discussing what constitutes healthy eating, but there is one that supersedes the other in terms of influencing the eating choices of the average Canadian citizen; Canada’s Food Guide. Canada’s Food Guide was overhauled in 2007, and renamed Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide (Health Canada 2011).While the majority of the Canadian population, including schools and other public institutions, use this guide when planning meals they have little to no understanding as to how this guid e was developed. The Food Expert Advisory Committee conducted the redesign of the guide in 2007, with members appointed by Health Canada (Health Canada 2011). One would assume that the members of this committee would be physicians and nutritionists that had a keen interest in the betterment of our heath; that they would be using their knowledge for good.A closer examination of the members of this committee uncovers the contrary; that many of the members have a strong conflict of interests. Paul Paquin held the position of chair at the time of the 2007 Food Guide revisions, while simultaneously acting as vice-president of the International Dairy Federation (Health Canada 2012). Paquin is not alone in holding a conflicting position while on the Food Expert Advisory Committee. Also advocating for the dairy industry is committee member Dr.Mansel Griffiths, who is concurrently on the Expert Scientific Advisory Committee for Dairy Farmers of Canada (Health Canada 2012). With our Food Guid e in the hands of such individuals, is it any wonder that dairy has it’s own distinct category in our Food Guide? Separate from the interests of these members of the committee, there is also the issue of meat in Canada’s food guide. In 2011, Harvard University released a study on the effects of red meat, disclosing that consumption leads to an increase of death due to cancer and heart disease, as well to an overall risk of death (Harvard School of Public Health 2012).The study detailed that one daily serving of unprocessed meat increased the overall risk of mortality by 13%, while the same serving of processed meat increased the risk by 20% (Harvard School of Public Health 2012). This then begs the question of why it is so ingrained in the minds of civil society that we â€Å"need† animal protein to survive? Despite these findings being published by a well-respected institution, Canada’s Food Guide continues to recommend two daily servings of meat for adu lt females and three for adult males (Health Canada 2007).They also suggest eating two servings of fish a week, and choosing lower sodium luncheon (processed) meat products (Health Canada 2007). Providing that an individual does eat two servings of fish a week that leaves 12-19 servings available for the consumption of red meat. Canada’s Food Guide fails to reflect these well-researched findings because they are not in the best interest of the one-percent. Cattle farming, both for dairy and beef are lucrative industries in Canada, and they share close ties with the ruling class.The government is invested in protecting the presently established capitalist environment, that of bottom lines and the best interests of the minority- capitalist corporations- and in doing so is harming the majority- it’s citizens. As has been shown in this report, food security is part and parcel of a larger cycle of social problems. In Power and Resistance, Antony and Samuelson present some o f the issues which are both affected by and effect the matter of food security: persistent poverty in Canada, Indian residential schools, and the global economic crisis.Though not comparable to many developing countries around the world, it is essential to note that food insecurity does exist in developed countries such as Canada. In the 2007-2008 census it was reported that 7. 2% of Canadians were living in households that were food insecure (Health Canada). A primary contributing factor to the inability of Canadians to access food is its high cost. In 2012, Dieticians of Canada released the report The Cost of Eating in BC 2011 which drew attention to the fact that many British Columbians don’t have the resources to afford nutritious food.This is due, in large part, to the significant rise in food and shelter costs and the unchanged welfare rates (Dietitians Canada). In essence, people are not earning any more but their costs are rising meaning they cannot afford what Food S ecure Canada calls â€Å"safe food†: nourishing foods being readily at hand and the restriction of unhealthy products. One of the most impoverished groups in Canada is our Aboriginal community and as was presented, much of the school-age population was forced into residential schools up until 1998 when the last band school was dismantled.In these residential schools, food accessibility was of major concern as poor nutrition and the withholding of food were used as a means of control and suppression. Even after the closure of these institutions, the aboriginal community is continuing to feel the effects of its government’s exploitation. A 2010 study from the University of Western Ontario found that parental residential school attendance had a positive correlation with experiencing food insecurity, and that food insecurity was negatively correlated with doing well in school. In Health Canada’s 2007-2008 report on Household Food Insecurity, 20. % of Aboriginals wer e found to be living in food insecure households- this is 3 times higher than the non-Aboriginal households. â€Å"The global financial and economic crisis has pushed an additional 100 million people into hunger in 2009, bringing the overall number of undernourished people in the world to over one billion. † (FAO). The current crisis shadowed the climbing price of food and significantly limited food accessibility worldwide. In 2009, domestic staple foods in developing countries cost approximately 20% more than they did in 2007 (FAO).In order to deal with food insecurity, which directly threatens development, many households have been forced to implement negative coping strategies such as: selling of assets, becoming trapped in debt, withdrawing children from school, illegal activities, and forced migration. Furthermore, with the simultaneous decline in income and rise in food costs, individuals often reduce spending on â€Å"safe food†- primarily meat, dairy products, fruits and vegetables. What is clear from these examples is that there is a pervasive interconnectedness and that in order to make progress, multi-faceted and situation-appropriate approaches must be developed.To conclude, while it is easy to fall into the â€Å"traps† that result in the exploitative relationship between multinational producers and consumers, there are other options. The current food system is laden with large organizations that take advantage of limited consumer knowledge combined with government partnerships. This pairing allows for consumer knowledge to stay at a level where they can be easily exploited, demonstrating that the government is a key player in the continued failure of the food system in the eyes of their own citizens. All is not lost, as there are ways that individual consumers can mitigate the ffects that this failure has on them. The solution is for consumers and other members of the bullied group to look out for their own interests. Having the maximum control and knowledge about what is going in your body is paramount. Eating locally allows for the greatest possible understanding of the narrative of a given good before it reaches your plate. Be an informed citizen: do research on the issues that affect your wellbeing, do not let power equal credibility, trust no one and question everything. References: â€Å"Agricultural Land Reserve. † Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. Retrieved 11/26/12. http://www. alc. gov. bc. ca/alr/What_is_Ag_Land. htm). Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. (2012). Labeling of Genetically Engineered Chakraborrty, A. (2008). Exclusive: we publish the biofuels report they didn't want you to read. The Guardian, Retrieved from http://www. guardian. co. uk/environment Eberhardt, Jennifer, Paul Davies, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, and Sheri Lynn Johnson. 2006. †¦. â€Å"Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts †¦.. Capital Sentencing Outcomes. † Psychological Science 17(3):383-386. Eric Holt-Gimenez and Raj Patel. 2009. Food Rebellions! Forging Food Sovereignty to Solve the Global Food Crisis . New York, New York: Pambazuka Press, 2009. ETC Group. (2008). Who owns nature. Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life, No. (100), Retrieved from http://www. etcgroup. org/content/who-owns-nature â€Å"Food Aid: Reducing World Hunger† Canadian International Development Agency. Retrieved 11/26/12 (http://www. acdi-cida. gc. ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida. nsf/eng/JUD-24133116-PQL). Foods in Canada. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from Canadian Biotechnology Action Network: http://www. cban. ca/Resources/Topics/Labeling â€Å"Glossary: Bioaccumulation. † U. S.Geological Survey. 11/14/12. (http://water. usgs. gov/nawqa/glos. html). Gyorgy, S. (2003, July 10). Genetic agriculture designed to feed the rich, not the world. Globalism Institute at RMIT University, Retrieved from http://www. smh. com. au/articles/2003/07/09/1057430279267 Harvard School of Public Health. (2012). Press Releases. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from Harvard School of Public Health: http://www. hsph. harvard. edu/news/press- releases/2012-releases/red-meat-cardiovascular-cancer-mortality. html Health Canada. 2007. Eating Well With Canada's Food Guide. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from Health Canada: http://www. c-sc. gc. ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb- dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/view_eatwell_vue_bienmang-eng. pdf Health Canada. (2011, October 21). Food Expert Advisory Committee. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from Health Canada: http://www. hc-sc. gc. ca/fn- an/consult/frac-ccra/index-eng. php Health Canada. (2012). Membership List of the Food Expert Advisory Committee. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from Health Canada: http://www. hc-sc. gc. ca/fn- an/consult/frac-ccra/memb-eng. php Lang, Tim and Michael Heasman. 2004. Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. Sterling, Virginia: Earthscan. Leed er, Jessica. 011. Food riots: What creates the anger? Globe and Mail. Retrieved October 15th 2012. (http://www. theglobeandmail. com/news/world/food-riots-what-creates-the-anger/article564412/) Leigh, P. (2008). Eu biofuels target ‘probably a mistake,' france says. Reuters: EU Observer. Retrieved from http://euobserver. com/news/26419 Lymbery, Philip. 2012. â€Å"Jargon Buster. † Acompassionateworld. org. Retrieved November19, 2012 (http://www. acompassionateworld. org/jargon-buster). Malthus, T. R. , Winch, D. , & James, P. 1992. An essay on the principle of population. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Martini, C. & Shiva, V. (2008). The international commission on the future of food and agriculture: Manifesto on climate change and the future of food security. Arsia – Regione Toscana: Sesto Fiorentino (FI) by Press Service Srl. DOI: ftp://ftp. fao. org/paia/organicag/vandana_poster. pdf Marx, K. , Engels, F. , & Levitzky, S. L. 1970. Das Kapital, a critique of political economy. Chicago, Illinois: Regnery Gateway. Nestle, Marion. 2007. Food Politics: How the Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. London, England: University of California Press. Norton, Amy. 2012. â€Å"Genetically Modified Rice a Good Vitamin A Source. Reuters. Retrieved 11/26/12 (http://www. reuters. com/article/2012/08/15/us-genetically-modified-rice-idUSBRE87E0RO20120815). Oliver, Jaime. 2009. Jamie's Food Revolution. New York, NY, USA: The Penguin Group. Paarlberg, Robert. 2010. Food Politics:What Everyone Needs to Know: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Patel, Raj. 2009. â€Å"Stuffed and Starved – Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World's Food System. † Review of African Political Economy 36(119):143-144. Philip, M. (2009). Critical sociology: The agrofuels project at large. (pp. 5(6) 825-839). New York: Cornell University. Retrieved from http://devsoc. cals. cornell. edu/research/res earch-projects/upload/agrofuels-project-mcm-2009. pdf Public Service Alliance of Canada. 2011. â€Å"Starved budgets are a threat to food safety. † PSAC. November 19, 2012 (http://www. psac-afpc. com/issues/campaigns/3c/cfia-e. shtml). Runge, C. Ford. , Benjamin Senauer, Philip Pardey and Mark W. Rosegrant. 2003. â€Å"Ending Hunger in our Lifetime: Food Security and Globalization. † Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Samuelson, Les and Wayne Antony. 2012. Power and Resistance.Black Point, Nova Scotia and Winnipeg, Manitoba. Fernwood Publishing. Saving Crops, Saving Lives: The Need for More Aggressive Support to Climate Change Adaptation. † Canadian Hunger Foundation. 11/14/12. (http://www. chf. ca/documents/Latest_News/Climate_Change_Adaptation. pdf). Schanbacher, William. 2010. The Politics of Food: The Global Conflict between Foot Security and Food Sovereignty. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. Srinivasan, T. N. 1993. Food Aid: A cause, or symptom, of development failure, or an instrument for success? New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University. TEDTalks (Director). 2010.Jamie Oliver's TED Prize Wish [Motion Picture]. Tim Lang and Michael heasman. 2004. Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. Sterling, Virginia: Earthscan. Thomson, Anthony. 2010. The Making of Social Theory: Order, Reason and Desire. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. â€Å"Working Paper: Corruption in the Land Sector. † Transparency International: the global coalition against corruption. Retrieved 11/25/12. (http://www. fao. org/docrep/014/am943e/am943e00. pdf). WTO. 2001. â€Å"The Doha Mandate. † Retrieved November 17th 2012 (http://www. wto. org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/dohaagmandate_e. htm).

Amaranth Advisors

Amaranth Advisors LLC was created in 2000 as a multi-strategy hedge fund with approximately $600 million in capital. It sought to employ a diverse group of arbitrage trading strategies particularly featuring convertible bonds, mergers and utilities. In 2002, Amaranth added energy commodity trading to its slate of strategies with JP Morgan Chase clearing Amaranth’s commodity trades. A multi-strategy fund runs several different strategies in-house that contribute to the total performance of the fund. A single-strategy fund concentrates the whole portfolio on one strategy. Amaranth was long natural gas futures. They enjoyed huge profits from natural gas futures and option trades in 2005 and early 2006. Brian Hunter used borrowed money to double-down on his bets. Buying more futures contracts of this same kind supported their price by increasing demand, which then increased the price gains. It seemed that Brian Hunter was acting on his own entity and that there was little to no communication between the star trader and the management team. Even though the firm emphasized that its fund was multi-strategy, most of the recent losses were driven by adverse natural gas trades. Prior to this debacle, most investors who viewed reports from this firm saw no reason to worry about its performance although some privy to their portfolio positions expressed concern. Amaranth’s misfortunes were solely a result of poor risk management. Also, even though the firm lost over $6 billion in a matter of days, the losses had minimal impact in the industry as a whole. The hearings on natural gas speculation by the permanent subcommittee on investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs clearly demonstrate that the Amaranth debacle could have been easily avoided had ICE like NYMEX had the ability to limit Amaranth positions. In 2006, NYMEX examined Amaranth’s positions and calculated that Amaranth held about 51% of the open interest in the September natural gas futures contract which would expire at the end of the month. NYMEX determined that this was too large and on August 8 NYMEX compliance officials notified Amaranth of their concerns. During a follow up notification on August 9 NYMEX further notified Amaranth that they should not reduce September positions simply by shifting those positions to the October contract. Amaranth complied with NYMEX’s directions and subsequently reduced its September and October positions. However, at the same time Amaranth increased its positions in September and October in ICE contracts and as a results increased their overall positions in natural gas. The events that followed in late August and September led to huge losses with Amaranth losing significant value. The losses were created due to overconfidence, lack of transparency, and lack of risk management. Amaranth enjoyed huge profits and thought prices would just keep rising. There was no communication between Hunter and the management team. Also, investors had no knowledge that the majority of the portfolio was invested in natural gas positions. Leverage played a huge role in the losses. A hedge fund will typically borrow money, with certain funds borrowing sums many times greater than the initial investment. If a hedge fund has borrowed $9 for every $1 received from investors, a loss of only 10% of the value of the investments of the hedge fund will wipe out 100% of the value of the investor's stake in the fund, once the creditors have called in their loans. Risk management at Amaranth failed in August and September of 2006, resulting in the massive loss of over $5 billion in about a week. In the commodities markets only 10 percent was required as collateral for margin calls. Amaranth could also borrow at up to eight times assets to achieve massive amounts of leverage. Amaranth’s systems didn’t appear to measure correctly how much risk it faced and what steps would limit losses effectively. The risk models use historic data but the natural gas markets were more volatile in 2006, which made models useless. Amaranth used spread trades in natural gas futures and options markets to hedge their bets and control risk. Still, these spreads can widen and losses can increase. Going forward, appropriate due diligence should be done by the management team to make sure this does not happen again. Amaranth could have also protected with better downside protection such as put options.

History of the Iran-Contra Scandal

History of the Iran-Contra Scandal The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal that exploded in 1986, during President Ronald Reagans second term, when it came to light that senior administration officials had secretly- and in violation of existing laws- arranged for the sale of arms to Iran in return for Iran’s promise to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. Proceeds from the arms sales were then secretly, and again illegally, funneled to the Contras, a group of rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Iran-Contra Affair Key Takeaways The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal that played out between 1985 and 1987, during the second term of President Ronald Reagan.The scandal revolved around a plan by Regan administration officials to secretly and illegally sell arms to Iran, with funds from the sales funneled to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Cuban-controlled, Marxist Sandinista government.In return for the arms sold to them, the Iranian government had vowed to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah.While several top White House officials, including National Security Council member Colonel Oliver North were convicted due to their participation in the Iran-Contra affair, no evidence that President Reagan had planned or authorized the arms sales was ever revealed. Background The Iran-Contra scandal grew out of President Reagan’s determination to eradicate Communism worldwide. So supportive of the Contra rebels’ struggle to overthrow Nicaragua’s Cuban-backed Sandinista government, Reagan had called them, â€Å"the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.† Operating under the so-called â€Å"Reagan Doctrine† of 1985, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was already training and assisting the Contras and similar anti-Communist insurgencies in several countries. However, between 1982 and 1984, the U.S. Congress had twice specifically prohibited providing further funding to the Contras. The convoluted path of the Iran-Contra scandal began as a covert operation to free seven American hostages who had been held in Lebanon since the state-sponsored Iranian terrorist group Hezbollah had kidnapped them in 1982. The initial plan was to have America’s ally Israel ship weapons to Iran, thus bypassing an existing U.S. arms embargo against Iran. The United States would then resupply Israel with arms and receive payment from the Israeli government. In return for the weapons, the Iranian government promised to help free the Hezbollah-held American hostages. However, in late 1985, U.S. National Security Council member Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North secretly devised and implemented a revision to the plan whereby a part of the proceeds from the weapons sales to Israel would secretly- and in violation of the congressional ban- be diverted to Nicaragua to help the insurgent Contras. What Was the Reagan Doctrine? The term â€Å"Reagan Doctrine† arose from President Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union address, in which he called on Congress and all Americans to stand up to the Communist-ruled Soviet Union, or as he called it the â€Å"Evil Empire.† He told Congress: â€Å"We must stand by all our democratic allies, and we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives- on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua- to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.† Scandal Discovered The public first learned of the Iran-Contra arms deal shortly after a transport aircraft carrying 50,000 AK-47 assault rifles and other military weapons was shot down over Nicaragua on November 3, 1986. The aircraft had been operated by Corporate Air Services, a front for Miami, Florida-based Southern Air Transport. One of the plane’s three surviving crew members, Eugene Hasenfus, stated in a press conference held in Nicaragua that he and his two crewmates had been hired by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to deliver the arms to the Contras. After the Iranian government confirmed agreeing to the arms deal, President Reagan appeared on national television from the Oval Office on November 13, 1986, stating of the deal: â€Å"My purpose was to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the U.S. and Iran] with a new relationship †¦ At the same time we undertook this initiative, we made clear that Iran must oppose all forms of international terrorism as a condition of progress in our relationship. The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there.† Oliver North   The scandal grew worse for the Reagan administration after it became clear that National Security Council member Oliver North had ordered the destruction and concealment of documents related to the Iran and Contra arms sale. In July 1987, North testified before a televised hearing of a special joint congressional committee created to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal. North admitted that he had lied when describing the deal to Congress in 1985, stating that he had viewed the Nicaraguan Contras as â€Å"freedom fighters† engaged in a war against the Communist Sandinista government. Based on his testimony, North was indicted on a series of federal felony charges and ordered to stand trial. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North Testifies to Senate on Iran-Contra Scandal.   Getty Images Archive During the 1989 trial, North’s secretary Fawn Hall testified that she had helped her boss shred, alter, and remove official United States National Security Council documents from his White House office. North testified that he had ordered the shredding of â€Å"some† documents in order to protect the lives of certain individuals involved in the arms deal. On May 4, 1989, North was convicted of bribery and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a three-year suspended prison term, two years on probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. However, on July 20, 1990, his conviction was vacated when a federal court of appeals ruled that North’s televised 1987 testimony to Congress may have improperly influenced the testimony of some witnesses at his trial. After taking office in 1989, President George H.W. Bush issued presidential pardons to six other individuals who had been convicted for their involvement in the scandal.   Had Reagan Ordered the Deal? Reagan made no secret of his ideological support of the Contra’s cause. However, the question of whether he ever approved Oliver North’s plan to provide weapons to the rebels remains largely unanswered. The investigation into the exact nature of Reagan’s involvement was hindered by the destruction of related White House correspondence as ordered by Oliver North. In early 1986, the Reagan-appointed Tower Commission, chaired by Republican Texas Senator John Tower, found no evidence that Reagan himself was aware of the details or extent of the operation, and that the initial sale of arms to Iran had not been a criminal act. In a televised address on March 4, 1987, Reagan, however, took responsibility for the scandal, stating that â€Å"what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.† President Reagan's television address on the Iran-Contra Affair, 1987. National Archives While his image suffered as a result of the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan’s popularity recovered, allowing him to complete his second term in 1989 with the highest public approval rating of any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sources and Suggested References Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, United States. Congress. House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran.Reagan, Ronald. August 12, 1987. Address to the Nation on the Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy, The American Presidency ProjectNever Had an Inkling’: Reagan Testifies He Doubts Contragate Ever Happened. Videotape Transcript Released. Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. February 22, 1990.  The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On, The National Security Archive (George Washington University), 2006  Tower commission report excerpts, The Tower Commission Report (1986)

50 Questions to Ask Relatives About Family History

50 Questions to Ask Relatives About Family History A great way to uncover clues to your family history or to get great quotes for journaling in a heritage scrapbook is a family interview. By asking the right, open-ended questions, youre sure to collect a wealth of family tales. Use this list of family history interview questions to help you get started, but be sure to personalize the interview with your own questions as well. 50 Questions to Ask Your Relatives What is your full name? Why did your parents select this name for you? Did you have a nickname?When and where were you born?How did your family come to live there?Were there other family members in the area? Who?What was the house (apartment, farm, etc.) like? How many rooms? Bathrooms? Did it have electricity? Indoor plumbing? Telephones?Were there any special items in the house that you remember?What is your earliest childhood memory?Describe the personalities of your family members.What kind of games did you play growing up?What was your favorite toy and why? What was your favorite thing to do for fun (movies, beach, etc.)?Did you have family chores? What were they? Which was your least favorite?Did you receive an allowance? How much? Did you save your money or spend it?What was school like for you as a child? What were your best and worst subjects? Where did you attend grade school? High school? College?What school activities and sports did you participate in?Do you remember any fads from your youth? Popular hairstyles? Clothes? Who were your childhood heroes?What were your favorite songs and music?Did you have any pets? If so, what kind and what were their names?What was your religion growing up? What church, if any, did you attend?Were you ever mentioned in a newspaper?Who were your friends when you were growing up?What world events had the most impact on you while you were growing up? Did any of them personally affect your family?Describe a typical family dinner. Did you all eat together as a family? Who did the cooking? What were your favorite foods?How were holidays (birthdays, Christmas, etc.) celebrated in your family? Did your family have special traditions?How is the world today different from what it was like when you were a child?Who was the oldest relative you remember as a child? What do you remember about them?What do you know about your family surname?Is there a naming tradition in your family, such as always giving the firstborn son the name of his paternal grandfather?What stories have come down to you about your parents? Grandparents? More distant ancestors? Are there any stories about famous or infamous relatives in your family?Have any recipes been passed down to you from family members?Are there any physical characteristics that run in your family?Are there any special heirlooms, photos, bibles or other memorabilia that have been passed down in your family?What was the full name of your spouse? Siblings? Parents?When and how did you meet your spouse? What did you do on dates?What was it like when you proposed (or were proposed to)? Where and when did it happen? How did you feel?Where and when did you get married?What memory stands out the most from your wedding day?How would you describe your spouse? What do (did) you admire most about them?What do you believe is the key to a successful marriage?How did you find out you  were going to be a parent for the first time?Why did you choose your childrens names?What was your proudest moment as a parent?What did your family enjoy doing together?What was your profession and how did you choos e it? If you could have had any other profession what would it have been? Why wasnt it your first choice?Of all the things you learned from your parents, which do you feel was the most valuable?What accomplishments were you most proud of?What is the one thing you most want people to remember about you? While these questions make great conversation starters, the best way to uncover the good stuff is through more of a storytelling session than a QA.