Does Money Equal Power In American Politics Politics Essay

Does Money Equal Power In American Politics Politics Essay This essay argues that money does equal power in American politics and that campaign reform is still required in American society as this remains an ongoing problem. In order to show the impact of money in the American campaigning system I believe this essay should begin with a statement of the recent facts and figures in relation to the cost of campaigning in America. The 2012 campaign by Obama and Romney for the presidential race resulted in spending of over $6 billion reported which  includes money spent by the campaigns of both candidates, outside groups such as PACs, and independent organizations such as businesses  [1]  . In the evaluating of money and democracy in the presidential campaigns we must also look at public spending as this was supposed to be the answer in reforming the presidential campaigning. Campaign finance is not just a problem in the presidential campaigns, In 2010 $1.5 million was the average spent by house incumbents and $11.2 million was the average spent by senate incumbents, these numbers which we will compare with those of challengers to see if there is any inequality  [2]  . These figures alone show the e ye watering large amounts of money spent today by those in politics. There are many aspects that need to be looked at to determine if money affects he democracy of America. However this is not a recent problem in America, money in elections has been a problem for many decades and finally an introduction of a Act in 1971 was supposed to put this problem to bed. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 was created to restore peoples confidence in the campaigning system as many people felt large contributors had the biggest voice in political campaigns. This required funding to be made public. The Watergate scandal revealed during President Nixons campaign proved the corruption that was within the political system even with reforms in place as those who contributed large amounts were given positions as ambassadors in Nixons re-election committees, money equalling power  [3]  . This resulted in amendments being made to the original FECA such as the creation of the Federal Election Committee (FEC) who would ensure laws such as declarations of contributions where adhered to and brought public funding into the picture to try to stop the influence of large contributors. However, even when efforts are made to make campaign finance transparent to the public, there are still those who challenge this. In 1976 in the case of Buckley v Valeo, the reforms legislated by the FECA were brought to the courts. This case argued that the provisions made in the Act were unconstitutional. Here it was argued that money in politics was not corruption but instead it was a form of speech, therefore was protected by the first amendment of the Constitution of America and was a right of all Americans. It was decided that monetary contributions were an expression of ones support for a candidate which was a democratic right  [4]  . This association of money equals speech has been the hindrance of any reform after that and still poses problems in reform. Justice John Paul Stevens in 2000 presented a forceful opinion that money is property and not speech, surely money couldnt equal speech when money is not evenly distributed, this would prove that those with the biggest wallet had the biggest voices. The need for further reform after an extremely large redirecting of contributions in the form of sof t money led to further reform of the campaign system in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)  [5]  which targeted the booming problem of soft money during campaigns. This problem was as a result of the allowance of the FECA of organisations giving money indirectly to candidates; this money was not recorded by the FEC and had an unlimited budget. This was abolished by BCRA to further attempt to bring fairness to all candidates and to try, once again, ensure money did not equal power in America. Campaign reform in America tries to take the impact of money away from the impact of politics. But interest groups and the subsequent PACs have still left a question mark on the influence of money on the campaigns. Louise Overacker in 1932 expressed her concerns that financing of elections in a democracy is a major problem and raised the question of if democracies do not inevitably become government ruled by small groups  [6]  . This brings us into the discussion of interest groups and PACS and their impact on American Democracy. PACs are organisations created through the FECA to allow these organisations to raise and distribute money to campaigns, allowing more money to be directed at candidates. Many interest groups and large organisations create PACs  [7]  . Interest groups are known to have aims in politics in America, firstly to elect friends and defeat enemies and secondly to increase the number of people in political positions that share their views. Business interest groups on the other hand will more than likely use the friendly incumbent rule of backing the incumbent that is certain to be re elected and generally shares their views rather than a challenger who may be more supp ortive of their interests but is not guaranteed to succeed in their campaign  [8]  . Why is this? Why not support the candidate who is more supportive of your cause and stand by them? This raises the suspicion of interest groups being more concerned with gaining the access of those in power. If interest groups are raising large quantities of funding for these candidates surely they are receiving something in return, otherwise why continue to pump money into a wasted cause?  [9]  It is known that many people involved PACs are those that are well educated and part of the upper class society which raises the question of is there an unbalance in the representation of society in America? As political scientist E.E Schattschneider said the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent  [10]  . If so this puts further questions on the American branding of democracy. However those who are against this view that interest groups and individual contributions thwart democracy argue that it does the opposite. They, on the other hand, argue that interest groups are a direct result of a democratic state. They argue that interest groups and PACs increase peoples awareness and interest in politics and therefore improve democracy in expanding peoples knowledge in political matters, an aspect recognised by James Madison  [11]  . Therefore in theory this activity contributes to democracy in America. But interest groups and PACs as discussed above look after and promote their own interests, they can do this by emphasising the negatives of another candidate through negative campaigning  [12]  or issue advocacy or by promoting the positive aspects of the candidate they are supporting. Therefore are they really serving the needs of the country or the needs of themselves? I feel they are only looking after their own interests to try to increase those in s upport of the candidate that will best serve them in the event that they win their election. Interest groups and PACs are unlikely to use their funding to compare the candidates in a fair and democratic way in the aim of giving the public a fair and even view of each candidate. Their aim of promoting their interests will lead to thwarted pictures of candidates. The fact is that organisations that make contributions, especially those with significant financial resources, want to ensure they make a Return on Investment, thats what these contributions are from many PACs and interest groups, they are investments not donations. As said on Capitol Hill my vote is not for sale but is available for rent.  [13]   Public funding was created by the FECA to try to take the issue of money out of campaigns and to prevent corruption of wealthy individuals in politics. However those who took public funding had to abide by a budget given to them. The option of partial funding in presidential primaries was rejected by many as they began to use the system to benefit themselves. In 2000 George Bush decided to reject partial funding in the primaries  [14]  . This was with the aim of using this time of to raise as much money as he could so that he could easily out race the other opponents in his raising of funds; therefore he was able to create more awareness of his campaign in the primaries over the opponents who were under strict instruction to stick to their public budgets. Bush easily received the nomination he needed but then used public funding in the general election as he has the awareness of his campaign already generated. This shows that even the candidates themselves are thwarting the syste m to improve their own campaigns without regard for other candidates chances of receiving recognition or a fair campaign. The ease of which Bush succeed proved that the money he received equalled power in his race for nomination despite the public funding being in place. More worryingly this year neither Obama nor Romney accepted public funding. Why? Because more money can be gathered from independent sources. A frightening thought considering how much they raised. Is the ideology of a public funding system becoming extinct?  [15]  if so it is direct proof that money equals power. Why is public funding being abandoned by candidates for the White House? Mainly it is due to the growth of Super PACs and dark money  [16]  . Super PACs seem to be replacing the previous spurt of 527 committees who raised money to influence the outcome of elections by raising unlimited amounts of money. Once this money was not used in conjunction with the candidates campaign and did not openly call for the defeat or election of a particular candidate it was completely legal. However now Super PACs can collect money from both individuals and corporations, they also cannot give money directly to the candidate but can use the money raised independently to help ensure the election of there preferred candidate. In the 2012 election the estimated money raised from outside groups was $970 million, this increase is being linked to the increase in Super PACs. $123 million is the estimated amount spent by dark money.  [17]  Dark money was a phrase adopted by the Mother Jones Magazine  [18]  which referred to the secret donations given to candidates by individuals and organisations. These donations occur in all political campaigns but seem to be most a part of the republican party fundraising. If people or businesses are able to donate large quantities of money to candidates without them being made public we again have to ask how this affects democracy in America. Money donated to campaigns that are not made public means that we are unable to see if there is a correlation between the money those secret donors have given and the decisions of the lawmakers. However the question on money in politics applies to all elections including those in the house and senate between incumbents and challengers. As mentioned in the introduction the power difference between incumbents and challengers in the house and senate where public funding isnt in place is extremely large. This difference boils down to money. Incumbents have the benefit of being well known and established and therefore do not need to spend vast amounts on creating public awareness. They also have loyal contributors already established to their campaign. Challengers on the other hand struggle to raise the money needed to create awareness of their campaign. Often the incumbents merely raise large quantities of money to discourage competition from new challengers. Is it a democracy where people are not made aware of new challengers due to the large spending of incumbents? When new challengers do not even get a chance due to the impact on money? It is known that people vote for those they recognise and reject those they have a lack of information on. Between 1984-2004 57% of challengers spent less than $100,000 on their camp aigns and all of them lost  [19]  . Money equals power. I have discussed many things within the American campaign system that make me question the branding of America as a Democracy due to the corruption caused by money. But does money actually get those who contribute a foot in the door? Political scientist say that the contributions of PACs does not have a major impact on legislators decisions, this is because although there is a direct correlation between donations and votes, there is no proven relationship between donations and lawmakers decisions  [20]  . However this will always be hard to prove as you cannot match contributions on a quid pro quo basis. It may have been found that money doesnt buy votes in congress but it is proven that contributors do get the loyalty of those in congress. It is known that contributions do achieve access  [21]  such as meetings with the candidates they have supported. Since most organisations will support those who are already in support of their views the do not need to persuade the candida te on their interests, therefore many of the PACs interests may be try to be mobilised through congressional committees. An example of money buying access can be seen in the Bush administration. Bush rewarded those who donated money to his Pioneer bundling system, most of whom were wealthy energy company official, business executives and lobbyists, with individual meeting and receptions, later Bush appointed 19 of the members as ambassadors worldwide  [22]  Would the lack of large donations have the same impact? We also saw that in the reign of Nixon those who donated large amounts became part of his re election committees, would this have been the case without the large donations? And would the contributors continue to donate without anything in return? It is unlikely. The New York Times gave the statistics that since Obamas election in 2008 to now, those who donated $30,000 or less, about 20% of these visited the White House, were those who donated over $100,000 where about 75 % more likely to visit the President.  [23]  Statistics that dont prove anything other than money equals power and access. Although reform was again attempted again through BCRA in 2002, there still seems to be problems within the campaign finance system. There are many suggested ways in which reform can be achieved. One is the idea of imposing ceilings on the amount spent in campaigns, but this may affect the competitive aspect of the campaigns. This also wouldnt help the challengers who already struggle to make themselves known to voters, therefore the well known incumbents would benefit leading to further questions of money impacting democracy. Another possible solution is to ban PACs and stopping large donations and let candidates rely on small donations to fund their campaigns but this is unlikely to raise enough funds.  [24]  The idea of public funding seemed to be the perfect solution as it took the importance of large donators out of the picture and put limits in place by candidates. If this was put in place for all elections in the house, congress as well as the presidential elections, this would reduce the amount spent on elections. However, the budgets of these public funds need to be increased to encourage candidates to be a part of this system. It may also attract candidates who dont want to waste too much time in their campaign raising money if the budget is right  [25]  . The problem with this is that this idea has been branded welfare for politicians an idea disliked by the American society.  [26]  The judgment by the courts that money equals speech also needs to be revisited. With this opinion being circulated it is only benefitting those with money. In order to pursue interests through politics, money and access is needed, but these are things not equally distributed, this makes you wonder how is this a democracy if it is allowing the people with these abilities to use them to push their ideas?  [27]   In conclusion, the problem is that many of the ideas for reform have as many positives as negatives, there seems to be no direct way to solve the problem of corruption within the political system and to prevent money from equalling power. In the last reform there was a corset affect that what was squeezed in one place merely popped out in another  [28]  in the increasing of 527 committees and the creation of Super PACs. It is viewed that this will be the case in any reform as John McCainn stated I promise you that in 20 or 30 years from nowà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦a group of others will be standing here saying weve got to clean up the system again, because therell be smart people that figure out loopholes in the system. I doubt he foresaw the speed at which these loopholes would be found. The fact of the matter is that money will always be the fuelling of politics in America and therefore until some way is found to take money out of politics money will equal power. As this essay title say s America has the best democracy money can buy. Bibiography Book sources: Jon R Bond and Kevin B Smith, The promise and performance of American Democracy. Thomson/Wadsworth 2009 Lowi, Shepsle, Ginsberg. American Government power and purpose. 7th ed. New York:Norton 2002 Tonnahill, Neal R, American government: policy and politics, 11th ed, Pearson study edition 2012 Robert Singh, American government and politics: A concise introduction. Sage 2003. McKay, Haughton and Wroe. Controversies in American Politics and Society. Oxford UK, Malden,Mass:Blackwell 2002 Robert Singh, Governing America: The politics of a divided democracy. Oxford University Press 2003. Samuel Kernell and Gary C Jacobson. The logic of American politics. Cq Press 2006, 3rd edition Bardes, Shmidt and Shelley, American government and politics today. 2004-2005 ed, London: Wasworth 2003 Internet sources: The Atlantic Wire last accessed on 19/12/12 The New York Times: last accessed 20/12/2012 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/politics/white-house-doors-open-for-big-donors.html?pagewanted=all last accessed 20/12/12

Chromatography: How can we separate a mixture?

PurposeThe chromatography lab is to understand how molecules with similar molecular properties can be separated with paper chromatography. These differences will be interpreted to see the distinction of separate chemical substances.Pre Lab Questions1. Explain capillary action as it pertains to water and paper.Capillary action makes water draw up the paper. As paper absorbs water mixes with the solutions in the paper.2. What is the Rf value in a chromatography experiment?Rf = Distance travelled by the solute from the original line/distance travelled by the solvent from the original line3. If a molecule has a high affinity for the stationary phase, how is the Rf value affected?High affinity for the stationary phase affects the Rf value by lower Rf values.4. If a molecule has high affinity for the mobile phase, how is the Rf value affected?The Rf value will be higher5. Imagine you are doing a chromatography experiment with a polar solvent and a molecule containing a carbonyl group. Woul d the Rf value be high or low? Explain.The Rf value would be predicted as being low because it would tend to stick to the paper more.6. Why must a pencil be used, instead of a pen or marker when marking chromatography plates?A pencil is being used when parking chromatography plates because the ink could take part in reacting with the substance that it is placed in.7. Why should latex gloves be worn when preparing chromatography plates?Latex gloves should be worn to prevent contamination of the chromatogram8. The sample fine thin-layer chromatography plate, shown below, was prepared by spotting methyl red at R, sudan III at S, and bromocresol green at G. A single drop of each was placed on M. The plate was put in the developing solution until the solvent front reached 10 cm. Estimate the retention factor of R,S, and G, by measuring to the middle of the spot.0.625 ; .369. Describe how the TLC plate shown in question #8 was improperly prepared. For thin layer chromatography the adsorbe nt is coated as a thin layer onto a suitable support. This layer substance mixture is separated by elution with a suitable solvent.10. Suppose that, while one of the chromatography plates is developing, the beaker is accidently bumped, and the developing solution splashes on the TLC plate. Explain how this would influence the results.The results would shift dramatically towards the selected solution before.Materials List:Food dye solutions, 3 colors and an â€Å"unknown† dye mixture Sodium chloride solution Isopropyl alcohol Paper chromatography plates Capillary tubes Pencil Five 250-mL beakers Plastic wrap Metric ruler Lab notebook Latex gloves, safety goggles, lab apronsProcedure: Activity 11. Wearing latex gloves, obtain ten chromatography plates, as directed by the instructor. Prepare each chromatography plate by marking lightly with pencil, a line at the bottom. Draw two small dots on the bottom line. Place the labels B (blue) and R (red) below the dots on the line. Repe at with the yellow food dye (Y) on another chromatography paper. Prepare the remaining eight plates the same way so that you have five sets of chromatography plates. 2. Properly prepare 250 mL beakers3. Cover 250 mL beakers with plastic wrap 4. Prepare 10 mL of below solution and place them in the beakers. Label with the mobile phase composition. a. 1% salt water b. 1% salt water/isopropyl alcohol (3:1) mixture c. 1% salt water/isopropyl alcohol (1:1) mixture d. 1% salt water/isopropyl alcohol (1:3) mixture e. isopropyl alcohol 5. cover each beaker with a piece of plastic wrap 6. Prepare 1 mL of each dye solution 7. Place one drop of blue food dye with the capillary tube 8. Do this for the â€Å"R† (separate capillary tube) 9. Do this for the â€Å"Y† (separate capillary tube) 10. Allow droplet to fully dry 11. Gently lower one of the plates into one of the 250-mL developing solution beakers, ensuring that the dry food dye spots are at the bottom.Ensure that  no solv ent splashes onto the chromatography plate above the initial solvent level 12. Carefully re-cover the 250-mL beaker13. The solvent will quickly rise through the plate. Allow until  ¾ way 14. Once the solvent level has reached the maximum height, quickly remove the plate from the 250-mL beaker and mark the exact point of the solvent front before the solvent evaporates. (will take longer) 15. Mark the plate with the identity of the developing solution composition. Set the plate face-up to allow it to dry 16. Replace the plastic wrap cover on the 250-mL beaker17. Repeat steps 7-16 with each of the other developing solutions. Ensure that each plate is properly marked and labeled 18. Measure the distance between the bottom line and the upper solvent line on each plate. Record this information in the data table 1 for the corresponding developing solution 19. Identify and circle each spot corresponding to the indicator dyes on each of the chromatography plates 20. Measure the distance be tween the bottom line and the center of each indicator spot (B,R andY) on each plate. Record this data in the corresponding data table 21. Ask the instructor whether the chromatography plates should be retained or disposed off

The Simpsons vs South Park

By contrast South Park relies on our knowledge of subjects outside the realm of elevation. South Park's humor is heavily dependent on the fact that its audience is consuming media and observing culture outside of traditional television shows. The Simpson family is, literally, a middle American family. The town in which they live, â€Å"Springfield† Is constantly shown to be In the center of the country in any of the shows maps. The family consists of Homer and Marge, he's an overweight, undereducated couch potato and she's the long suffering loving wife.Together they have three children Bart, Lisa and Maggie. The trouble-maker, straight a student and doodler respectively, just the composition of this family shows that the creators are seeking to lampoon the average American family. The stupidity of Homer and the children's antics and the ridiculous nature of the world around them are strictly for laughs. In show advertisements mock sexism and religion in American culture. With in the show, the television often reflects criticism of news and popular action movies and issues of children and violence.But for all this satire, there is not much bark to the Simpson bite. The show itself must depend on advertisement revenue. Its network, FOX, Is one of the Top 4 networks In the country. In the late ass's, the Image of Bart Simpson was synonymous with Butterfingers candy bars. There were two music Cad's released with official music videos, that would play at the end of the episodes. It's parody too point. And Its parody that many American's are well aware of already. It's as if the creators wink and nudge at the audience and say ‘You're smart and we know it.Now please, buy our products. † South Park attempts to do something beyond just simple parody of our consumption and violence. Trey Parker and Matt Stone attempt to create new meaning out what we have already viewed. The very meaning of the parody is derived from what you already know of the target of ridicule. This is what Jerkiest and Fiske refer to as intellectuality. They attempt to relate the Simpson to this dynamic but I believe this realm is where South Park is actually operating.The Simpson may use this intellectuality when playing with genre, but South Park uses it when conveying the very meaning of the parody. Even this season alone, South Park had covered the topics of social media sites Like Faceable, celebrates and sex scandals and the hypocrisies of the media concerning such events, and marijuana legalization debate. All of these topics are lampooned by critiquing the media's covered and both sides of the social and political debate on TV.You have to be critically aware to understand the finer points of South Parks humor that lies beneath the crude language and crass Jokes. The irony is that those that think Homer Simpson is a cutting edge satire of American life, are most likely a carbon copy of Homer himself. It's easy to criticize South Park on the surface, b ut those that are media literate will â€Å"get the Joke† more than its critics. The Simpson are entertaining but ultimately, too safe.

Essay on Evolution and Ambiguous Communication - 766 Words

Throughout the debate concerning evolution, I have noted the relative precision or imprecision of various methods of human communication. From the connotations of particular words to the emotion incited by a distinct music phrase, it is often surprising which human forms of expression are ambiguous and which seem to be universal. When considering this phenomenon, it is perhaps useful to construct a method for discussing the relative accuracy of communicating exactly what we mean when we use various ways to say it. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is relevant to our discussion to ask whether meaning(thought) pushed language into existence, or whether it was language that originated meaning. If the first is true, then mediums such as†¦show more content†¦Assuming this conclusion does not necessarily mean that the artist or creator thought first of a meaning for their creation in words, and then translated that worded meaning into a piece, but that anything that the artist was currently experiencing internally, thoughts or emotions, must necessarily be precluded by her language. As such, anything that the creator creates is also a product of her meaning only through that language which gives voice to it. If this is truly the case, one must wonder why people bother to translate worded meaning into some other form if the only goal is to accurately transmit specific meaning from one person to another. The original meaning must necessarily lose something in each translation. Or why people bother to write poetry, full of empty space and ambiguities, when they could come right out and say it more precisely in a nice block of prose? This inherent ambiguity of poetry is best expressed by Culler in Literary Theory: If you take the sentence as a poem, the question isnt quite the same: not what does the speaker or author mean but what does the poem mean? How does this language work? What does this sentence do? (24) Here Culler points out an interesting decentralization of original meaning. In an ambiguous form of transmitting meaning (such as art, music, or poetry), the creation seems to take on a life of its own, a meaning of its own, separate from the meaning intendedShow MoreRelatedThe Is A New Day796 Words   |  4 Pagestechnologies on an evolutionary, convenience, and necessity basis, where the enhancement of the human body advances communication, intensifies information absorption, and supersedes the body’s physical limitations for newfound human freedoms . The technology becomes a contemporary savior, overcoming the human biological constraints and weaknesses imposed on us through natural evolution , a utopian potential where technology facilitates cultural production. For thousands of years society has grappledRead MoreThe Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin1486 Words   |  6 Pagespoverty. The moon of Urras is Anarres which is a stateless society that is continuously stagnant and has been in such a position for several decades. Although Anarres is described as the better world out of the two, the subtitle of the novel â€Å"An Ambiguous Utopia† indicates that there are some downfalls to this seemingly perfect society. This is a world of devastation with majority of their citizens in poverty and forced to work in jobs that they are not suited for and ultimately hate. The workingRead MoreThe Importance of Art Essay655 Words   |  3 Pages Art portrays various ideas, feelings such as triumph, love, happiness, sorrow and boredom in loss to mention a few. Art is beauty and creativity. During man’s evolution art has progressed over in its most primitive state up to its most modernized versions today. History shows that art has been used as a major tool for communication. Cavemen did art on their walls using unsophisticated and blunt tools. The indigenous people of our country, the aborigines such as Albert Namatjira have also doneRead MoreDefining Diversity: the Evolution of Diversity1435 Words   |  6 PagesDEFINING DIVERSITY: THE EVOLUTION OF DIVERSITY by Camille Kapoor 1. INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS DIVERSITY? The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical ability, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differencesRead MoreEffective Communication And Successful Implementation Of Change Initiatives1467 Words   |  6 Pagesthat will surface, effective communication must be utilized as a part of the change strategy. Organizational change defined by Hurn (2012 cited in Bourne, 2015:p. 142) â€Å"involves changing an organization’s direction from the present position to a more desired position, in an effort to respond better to new challenges and opportunities†. Change tends to have a negative connotation but without change, an organization can become stagnant. What role does effective com munication play in organizational changeRead MoreStory and Truth in Edwin Blashfields The Evolution of Civilization1284 Words   |  6 Pagesthrough the medium of government-sponsored art, and provide a relatively young nation with a story about themselves -- a visual â€Å"literature† which would connect them to the distant past.1 Among the most famous of these murals is Edwin Blashfield’s The Evolution of Civilization which occupies the massive dome of the Main Reading Room; twelve cultures are represented in the circle, each credited with a unique contribution to Western civilization.2 In one case, ancient Egypt is depicted as having contributedRead More The Unwritten History of Cave Paintings Essay1613 Words   |  7 PagesQuestions arise like, â€Å"why did man find a need to paint the walls of caves† and is this part of the foundation of the origin of human life as we know it? (Beacon) The ecumenical belief is rooted at history, cave paintings are manà ¢â‚¬â„¢s unwritten story of evolution. In the Upper Paleolithic period, from 40000 B.C. to 10000 B.C., paintings were created in over 300 caves across the globe. â€Å"There are two types of cave art: petroglyphs, which are pictures carved in stone and pictographs, which are picturesRead MoreA Review of the Doctrine of Agency by Necessity1690 Words   |  7 Pagessituation, by a person who acts in the interest of the principal. The Indian Contract Act remains silent as to classification of the doctrine under any section, though many debate that it is to be under the head of Section 189. This is an extremely ambiguous area in the law of agency, as there are quite a few specific scenarios apart from the quintessential ‘shipmaster’, which are debatable as to assumption of authority. In this paper, the concepts of the conditions prerequisite to the assumption ofRead MoreThe Importance Of Internet Censorship1378 Words   |  6 Pagesusers, the content grows as well. Different people use the Internet for diffe rent things with no worries, because they have the right to. Censorship is unnecessary, unethical, and unconstitutional, and would prove counterproductive to the continued evolution of the Internet. From the textbook, Censorship is the attempt to suppress or regulate public access to material considered offensive or harmful, thus internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewedRead MoreThe Visual Arts, Technology, And Philosophy1683 Words   |  7 Pageswonder how much did The Information Age really contribute to society and, more specifically, the visual arts, technology, and philosophy. The Information Age, as defined by Gloria K. Fiero, is â€Å"dominated by radical changes in the technology of communication and the way we receive and process information† (Fiero, 476). The Information Age paved the way for several brilliant artists to not only share their work, but create their work. Artists, such as Andy Warhol, expressed their artistic abilities