Whats So New about the New Terrorism

The term new terrorism came into its own after the September 11, 2001 attacks, but the phrase itself is not new. In 1986, the Canadian news magazine, Macleans, published The Menacing Face of the New Terrorism, identifying it as a war against the perceived decadence and immorality of the West by Middle Eastern, mobile, well-trained, suicidal and savagely unpredictable...Islamic fundamentalists. More frequently, new terrorism has  focused on a perceived new threat of mass casualties caused by chemical, biological or other agents. Discussions of new terrorism are often highly alarmist: it is described as far more lethal than anything that has come before it, a terrorism that seeks the total collapse of its opponents (Dore Gold, the American Spectator, March/ April 2003). The UK writer is correct in thinking that when people do make use of the idea of a new terrorism, they mean at least some of the following: The new terrorism aims at destruction as an end in itself, while the old terrorism used violent destruction as a means to a political end;The new terrorism aims, therefore, at as much destruction as possible, whether through devastating forms of weaponry or techniques such as suicide terrorism, whereas the old terrorism sought to create a dramatic spectacle with as little damage as possible;The new terrorism is organizationally distinct from the old terrorism. It is heterarchical (has many equally authoritative points of authority) and horizontal, rather than hierarchical and vertical; it is decentralized rather than centralized. (You might notice that corporations, social groups and other institutions are also frequently described in new terms, these days);The new terrorism is justified on religious and apocalyptic grounds, while the old terrorism was rooted in political ideology. New Terrorism Not So New, After All On its face, these simple distinctions between new and old terrorism sound rational, especially because they are tightly bound to  discussions of al-Qaeda, the most highly discussed terrorist group of recent years. Unfortunately, when held up to history and analysis, the distinction between old and new falls apart. According to Professor Martha Crenshaw, whose first article on terrorism was published in 1972, we need to take a longer view to understand this phenomenon. In the March 30, 2003 edition of the  Palestine Israel Journal she argued: The idea that the world confronts a new terrorism completely unlike the terrorism of the past has taken hold in the minds of policy makers, pundits, consultants, and academics, especially in the US. However, terrorism remains an intrinsically political rather than cultural phenomenon and, as such, the terrorism of today is not fundamentally or qualitatively new, but grounded in an evolving historical context. The idea of a new terrorism is often based on insufficient knowledge of history, as well as misinterpretations of contemporary terrorism. Such thinking is often contradictory. For example, it is not clear when the new terrorism began or the old ended, or which groups belong in which category. Crenshaw goes on to explain the flaws in broad generalizations about new and old terrorism. Speaking generally, the problem with most of the distinctions is that they arent true because there are so many exceptions to the supposed rules of new and old. Crenshaws most important point is that terrorism remains an intrinsically political phenomenon. This means that people who choose terrorism act, as they always have, out of discontent with how society is organized and run, and who has the power to run it. To say that terrorism and terrorists is political, rather than cultural, also suggests that terrorists are responding to their contemporary environment, rather than acting out of an internally coherent belief system that has no relationship to the world around it. If this is true, then why do todays terrorists often sound religious? Why do they speak in divine absolutes, while the old terrorists spoke in terms of national liberation, or social justice, which sound political? They sound that way because, as Crenshaw puts it, terrorism is grounded in an evolving historical context. In the last generation, that context has included the rise of religiosity, the politicization of religion, and the tendency to speak politics in a religious idiom in mainstream circles, as well as in violent extremist ones, both East and West. Mark Juergensmeyer, who has written much on religious terrorism, has described bin Laden as religionizing politics. In places where political speech is officially muted, religion can offer an acceptable vocabulary for voicing an entire range of concerns. We might wonder why, if there isnt really a new terrorism, so many have spoken of one. Here are a few suggestions: The first efforts to describe a new form of terrorism, in the 1990s, were generally by professional students of terrorism attempting to make sense of phenomena that did not fit into the model that evolved in the 1970s and 1980s out of left-leaining national liberation movements. Attacks such as that of the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo did not make sense without a reconsideration of the model;Clear schematics such as old and new make complex phenomena seem simple, which is intellectually satisfying and emotionally comforting in a complicated world;When people do not know the historical or cultural context of a phenomenon, anything that they do not recognize may indeed look new. In reality, it is simply new to them;Although individuals who write about new terrorism after 9/11 may not be aware of it, their claim of unprecedented lethality is a political argument that favors putting more resources into terrorism (which does not kill as many people as heart disease, or poverty) precisel y because it is so lethal;It is difficult for any cause to draw attention in crowded media space. Claiming newness is one way to distinguish a phenomenon, and it is easier to digest than explanations of complicated historical facts;Identifying a new phenomenon can help a writer gain attention or build a career.

“the Taming of the Shrew” vs “10 Things I Hate About You”

William Shakespeare wrote a famous piece called â€Å"The Taming of the Shrew† in the late 16th century. In 1999, a modern version of Shakespeares piece was created into a film called â€Å"10 Things I hate About You†. They are obviously both similar due to the fact that â€Å"10 Things I Hate About You† was a remake of the original, but they are not completely the same. The modern film version was changed to suit a different audience of the time period and contained more up-to-date features. The play â€Å"The Taming of the Shrew†, is basically about a â€Å"shrew† named Katherine Minola who is infamous for having a bad temper and being volatile. It is thought that no man would ever want Katherine due to the fact that she would be temperamental and†¦show more content†¦Another example is that Petruchio, at first, only agrees to marry Katherine for the dowry. The same thing happens in the movie when Patrick agrees to date Kat for the money presented to him. They do fall in love with Katherine and Kat in the end. The differences between these two pieces of work are also fairly obvious. In the play the two women are daughters of the Lord of Padua. The movie is modernized so that it takes place in aShow MoreRelatedGirls And 10 Things I Hate About You1782 Words   |  8 Pagesfilms, Mean Girls and 10 Things I Hate About You, successfully illuminate the motives and characterizations of young adult life and the troubles and tribulations that come along with it. 10 Things I Hate About You is a film about teenagers growing up in Seattle in the 1990’s. The music, clothing, and slang presented in the movie all emulate the time period in which it was released. The movie itself is based off of the play by William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew. Senior, Kat Stratford

Compare Two Theories Of Learning Education Essay Free Essays

This essay is traveling to be discoursing two different theories of larning within the Early Years Foundation Stage. The two theories that are traveling to be compared are the theory of Operant Conditioning which was conducted by Skinner and the second was the Social Learning Theory which was conducted by Bandura. The first theory that will be discussed is Operant Conditioning. We will write a custom essay sample on Compare Two Theories Of Learning Education Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now B F Skinner was a behaviorist who studied kids ‘s behavior and from this he developed the theory of Operant Conditioning. Skinner developed the thought of Operant Conditioning the work of Edward Thorndike. One definition of Operant Conditioning is: â€Å" behavior that is followed by pleasant effects tend to be repeated and therefore learned. Behaviour that is followed by unpleasant effects tends non to be repeated and therefore non learned. † ( Alberto and Troutman, 2006 ; pg. 12 ) . Operant Conditioning consists of two different types of support. The first type of support is positive support. Positive support is a manner of reenforcing a coveted behavior in kids through positive feedback or wagess. For illustration, in footings of acquisition, a practician may praise a kid for giving the correct reply to a inquiry. There are two different types of positive support. These are positive reinforcing stimuluss and negative reinforcing stimuluss. Positive reinforcing stimulu ss are when a positive result is used as a wages. So for illustration, if a kid is acting a spine will be given to them at the terminal of the twenty-four hours. Negative reinforcing stimuluss are when something negative is taken off when the kid does something good. So for illustration, if a kid has non behaved and have been told that they are traveling to be losing some of their drama and the kid does something good subsequently on the kid will hold their drama returned. The 2nd type of support is negative support. This is besides known as penalty. Negative support can be explained by the remotion of a negative stimulation to increase the likeliness of the kid moving in the coveted manner. For illustration, if two kids are systematically speaking to each other negative support would affect dividing the two kids so that they can non speak to each other. There are two different types of negative support. These are negative penalty and positive penalty. Negative penalty is where some thing positive the kid has been given is taken off from them after bad behavior. If the school uses a chart system such as a rainbow chart to demo kids ‘s behavior and a kid has behaved throughout the twenty-four hours and had their name put on the rainbow, if they so misbehave they will be moved lower down the chart towards the cloud. Positive penalty is where the kid is misconducting and they have a negative response for it. An illustration of this is where the kid a child gets scolded for hapless behavior. Another illustration of this is where a kid stones on their and are told off for it. If they do it once more and fall off of the chair and hurt themselves they will larn non to make it once more. Children within the Early Years Foundation Stage are still larning the difference between what is right and what is incorrect. Operant Conditioning Theory is relevant to kids of this age group due to the fact that the cardinal construct of this theory is reward and penalty. If ki ds are rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad behavior systematically, they are more likely to larn the right manner to act. Skinner ‘s Operant Conditioning Theory can clearly be seen within my scene. Throughout my puting each of the categories use Operant Conditioning a batch with the kids. In my peculiar schoolroom, the instructor uses a system known as the rainbow system. The kids ‘s names start off on the Sun at the beginning of the twenty-four hours and if they behave truly good and work truly difficult so there name will be moved up to the rainbow and if they continue to work hard so their names move up to the pot of gold. At the terminal of the twenty-four hours if there are kids whose names are still on the pot of gold so they receive a spine. However, if the kids are being riotous, they are given a warning by the instructor and if they carry on so their names and moved down to the cloudy sky image and so if they still carry on their names will be moved down to the rain cloud. I feel that Operant Conditioning theory is relevant in my scene as it is used systematically throughout the sch ool. First, it is non merely in the EYFS it is used, it is besides used in all of the other categories through a virtue system. The virtue system is really good as if the kids get adequate virtues throughout the twelvemonth and their clip in the school they receive a wages. Besides, on Sports Day, they school is split into six different groups and if the virtues each kid gets throughout the twelvemonth for their group is added to the sum they receive on Sports Day and the group that wins is given the House Cup. Another ground why I feel that Operant Conditioning is relevant in my scene is due to the fact that it is consistent throughout the whole school. It is non merely used in the schoolroom, they besides use it in assemblies. For illustration, throughout the assemblies the practicians walk around and detect the kids and those that are acting throughout the whole of the assembly will have virtue points to manus to their instructor. However, there are some failings in the ways in w hich this system in used within my scene. For illustration, although it is a good thought, I feel that non all of the kids are recognised for their good behavior. Although I understand that it may be hard for the practicians to recognize all of the kids that are acting good, some of the kids may experience that they are non noticed for acting suitably. The 2nd theory in which is traveling to be discussed within this essay is Albert Bandura ‘s Social Learning Theory. Albert Bandura is a behavioristic theoretician. Social Learning Theory is based chiefly on Behaviourism and Cognitive Theory. The chief thoughts behind the Social Learning Theory are patterning and observation. An illustration of Social Learning Theory within a school scene is when a kid is misconducting and another kid who is really familiar with kid imitates their behavior. Social Learning Theory is relevant to the Early Years Foundation Stage due to the fact that the cardinal construct of this peculiar theory is fake and patterning. Children of this degree and age tend to copy others in footings of how they behave. They besides tend to copy those that are function theoretical accounts to them. Bandura ‘s Social Learning Theory is besides apparent within my arrangement. Throughout the school the instructors act as good function theoretical accounts for the kids and they try to acquire kids to retroflex good behavior. For illustration in my arrangement the instructors try to acquire the kids to retroflex good behaviors that they see within the schoolroom scene. So if a kid is non sitting softly and another kid is the instructor is likely to notice on the kid ‘s good behavior. Then the instructor will state the kid misconducting that should move how the other kid is moving. The theory is besides apparent within my arrangement through the practicians themselves. For illustration, kids tend to copy the ways in which their instructors behave, so the practicians within my puting behave in ways in which they want the kids to act so that the kids will retroflex good behavior. I feel that this theory is besides relevant in my arrangement. There are some strengths and wea knesses to this theory being used in the EYFS. First of all the strengths of utilizing this theory in my arrangement are that if a kid is acting good in the schoolroom, other kids around them are more likely to copy this behavior. However, a failing of this theory being used within my arrangement is that kids who are non behaving and are non addressed by the practician are besides likely to hold that behavior imitated by other kids in the category which could take to many of the kids acting in this manner. Operant Conditioning and Social Learning Theory are different in many different ways. First of all ; in Operant Conditioning the chief focal point is on honoring good behavior and penalizing bad behavior, but in Social Learning Theory the chief focal point is on kids retroflexing behaviors that they have observed and witnessed from their function theoretical accounts. Another manner in which operant conditioning and societal acquisition theory differ from each other is in footings of when kids learn. First of all, in operant conditioning, kids learn how to act from what they have experienced antecedently, whereas with societal larning theory, kids learn from each experience when they imitate a behavior from the practician or their schoolmates. Both of these theories are besides similar in many different ways. First of wholly, both of the theories focus on kids detecting behavior and behaving in a manner that they have learnt is the appropriate manner. So for illustration in operant conditioning the kids observe other kids around them acting to acquire wagess or they themselves have behaved in order to acquire wagess and they have learnt that to acquire the wages they need to act the same manner in which they did earlier. In societal acquisition theory the kids observe other people around them acting in a peculiar manner and they imitate this behavior, particularly if it is person they consider a function theoretical account or it is person who they are really good friends with. To reason, both of these theories are really utile to utilize in a schoolroom puting when working with younger kids. However, from my experience I feel that Bandura ‘s Social Learning Theory, may non be the best theory to utilize when working with the EYFS due to the fact that the kids are really immature and make non rather understand the construct of good and bad behavior and they do be given to copy the behavior of those around them that they are friends with. Overall, I do experience that although there are restrictions when utilizing Social Learning Theory both Operant Conditioning and Social Learning Theory do work good together in helping practicians in educating the kids within the EYFS. How to cite Compare Two Theories Of Learning Education Essay, Essay examples

Charles Dickens Great Expectations Essay Example For Students

Charles Dickens Great Expectations Essay Great Expectations, written by Charles Dickens is the novel I have been reading and analysing. Charles Dickens has used his childhood memories for this story but this book also shows the effects of society. Pip, fully named Philip Pirrip, is the protagonist of the story. The novel takes us through Pips life, from being a common labouring boy to a gentleman. Sympathy is caused by a lot of the happenings in Pips life however we also become distanced from the narrator of the book. Pip is an innocent boy who has been brought up to respect his elders and betters. Pip has been an orphan for many years of his life, and is now cared for by his bitter sister, Mrs Joe and his affectionate brother-in-law, Joe. They all live together on the Thames marshes; the Thames marshes are bleak and largely uninhabited. Pips relatives are buried in a graveyard near Pips house, and he regularly visits them. Pip is very un-educated and so cannot read what it says on their tombstones, we feel sympathetic towards Pip for not being able to read what it says. Pip goes to the graveyard and gets greeted by a fearful man dressed in coarse grey; the large frightening man seizes hold of Pip and threatens him verbally. He then turns Pip upside down to empty his pockets. Pip tells the convict that his mother is nearby, the convict panics. Pip actually means that his mother is buried nearby. We feel sympathy towards Pip as this is all happening around his mother, father, and brothers graves. The convict is wearing irons around his leg. He later finds out that Pip lives with a blacksmith and he demands Pip to steal a file and wittles for him. Pip gets informed that he mustnt tell anyone about the convict and if he does the convict will cut his liver out. Dickens shows how gullible Pip is by, Pip actually believing that a man would cut his liver out. Pips home life is uncomfortable. Pip and Joe are both victims of Mrs.Joes violent temper. Joe on the other hand is an honest blacksmith and Pips companion during Pips early years. Dickens creates sympathy for Pip by showing how Mrs.Joe has no maternal instincts, for example the pins and needles in her apron which stop Pip receiving love, show that Mrs.Joe is putting up a barrier. We also feel distanced from Mrs.Joe because we never find out her real name; Dickens does this to make us become distanced from Mrs.Joe. The constant vocabulary of aggression Charles Dickens uses to show Mrs.Joes personality makes us feel sympathy for both Pip and Joe. Pips sister always uses an angry tone of voice. Dickens uses exclamatory sentences, rhetorical questions and a questioning tone to show the aggression and anger inside Mrs.Joe. My sister has a trenchant way of cutting bread this shows that not only does she bring her anger out on Pip and Joe but also brings her anger out on everything around her. We feel sympathy towards Pip as Mrs.Joe is his only relative and she treats him with no respect and love. Punishment in Victorian times was harsh, and Mrs.Joe punishes Pip constantly and brutally. She canes Pip with the tickler. The tickler gets described as being smooth this adjective that Dickens uses shows that the tickler gets used frequently. Another punishment is tar-water Pip describes the tar water as smelling like a new fence this shows that it doesnt smell very good so most likely doesnt taste good either. The tar-water in Victorian homes was meant to be used for medicinal purposes however Mrs.Joe uses it for a punishment. Another punishment that Pip suffers is verbal abuse. Mrs.Joe talks to Pip with no respect, also Miss Havisham, Estella and all the visitors at Christmas talk to him in a condescending way. All of the punishments are cruel, so we feel sympathy towards Pip for having to put up with these punishments. .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 , .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .postImageUrl , .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 , .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:hover , .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:visited , .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:active { border:0!important; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:active , .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9 .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u4a6513abbf7d1133f76eb495a053e1c9:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: A And P By John Updike EssayOn Christmas day Joe and Pip both go to church, Pip wants to confess about stealing the wittles and the file. Pip has good ethics but is being troubled by not being able to own up to Joe. We feel sorry for Pip as he constantly has the thought of the convict and the robbery on his mind. Mrs.Joe invites some visitors over for Christmas. These visitors were; Mr Pumblechook, Mr Wopsle, Mr Hubble and Mrs.Hubble. These visitors were of a much higher class than Mrs.Joe, Pip and Joe. We get the idea that Mrs.Joe invited these visitors, to raise her social standing. Dickens shows this in the way of how Mrs.Joes personality changes once the guests arrive. In this chapter Mrs.Joe is mean and hypocritical, and she becomes an even less sympathetic character. When everybody is sat around the table, Pip is squeezed into a corner and had the Pumblechookian elbow in his eye. For Pip this must have been emotionally and physically un-comfortable. Pip is waiting for the revelation of the robbery whilst eating the food. The author uses the robbery and the condescending nature of the visitors to create pity for Pip in this chapter of his life. Pips invitation to Satis house was unexpected, Pip soon realises that Satis house has a strange inhabitant: Miss Havisham. As Pip arrives he feels insulted by Estella as she welcomes him into the house. Estella leads Pip by candlelight to Miss Havisham. Pips feelings quickly change as he meets Miss Havisham. Miss Havisham is dressed as a bride and wearing a wedding ring but everything in the room is aged and faded. All the watches and clocks in the house are stopped at twenty minutes to nine. Dickens creates sympathy for Pip by making the house sound dark and dismal, as Pip was probably not expecting anything like what it is like. Estella and Miss Havisham both treat Pip like a lower class; the way they do this is by constantly calling him boy and making Pip eat his food outside like a dog in disgrace. Estella also constantly reminds Pip of his social standing by calling him a Common labouring boy. The way that both Estella and Miss Havisham treat Pip makes him resent his simple upbringing. Estella makes Pip feel worthless and she always speaks to him in a tone of disgust. The strange atmosphere that Dickens has created makes the readers feel sympathetic towards Pip.