A Synopis of The Tell-Tale Heart Free Essays

Edgar Allan Poe’s short story â€Å"The Tell-Tale Heart† takes place in the protagonist’s house. It is told through a first-person narration given by the protagonist. It is unclear where the protagonist is or who the person being spoken to at the beginning of the story is. We will write a custom essay sample on A Synopis of The Tell-Tale Heart or any similar topic only for you Order Now The protagonist’s sex isn’t specified but for ease of discussion â€Å"he† will be used to refer to the same. There were only two occupants of the house wherein the story unfolds: the protagonist and an old man. The relationship between them is not clearly established but it is clear that the protagonist is irked by the old man. The latter’s most distinctive characteristic is his blue vulture-like eye.   There are few other characters introduced in the story: a neighbor who calls the police complaining of noises from within the house and policemen who investigate the said complaint. The story is moved by the protagonist’s obsessive desire to murder the old man because of his frustration with the old man’s eye. He attempts to commit the deed several times but is disappointed. On the eighth attempt he enters the old man’s room again and this time the   latter awakens and sits up. The light from the protagonist’s lamp hits the blue eye. He imagines that he hears the old man’s heart beating louder and smothers the old man to death. He chops the body to pieces and buries the pieces under the floorboards to hide his crime. However, when the policemen come to investigate the scream heard by the neighbor he imagines that he still hears the beating heart from underneath the floorboards. Fearing that the policemen hear the beating as well, he confesses to his crime and begs them to unfasten the boards and dig up the body. Works Cited Poe, Edgar Allan. The Complete Illustrated Stories and Poems. UK: Bounty Books, 1994. How to cite A Synopis of The Tell-Tale Heart, Papers

A Synopis of The Tell-Tale Heart Free Essays

Edgar Allan Poe’s short story â€Å"The Tell-Tale Heart† takes place in the protagonist’s house. It is told through a first-person narration given by the protagonist. It is unclear where the protagonist is or who the person being spoken to at the beginning of the story is. We will write a custom essay sample on A Synopis of The Tell-Tale Heart or any similar topic only for you Order Now The protagonist’s sex isn’t specified but for ease of discussion â€Å"he† will be used to refer to the same. There were only two occupants of the house wherein the story unfolds: the protagonist and an old man. The relationship between them is not clearly established but it is clear that the protagonist is irked by the old man. The latter’s most distinctive characteristic is his blue vulture-like eye.   There are few other characters introduced in the story: a neighbor who calls the police complaining of noises from within the house and policemen who investigate the said complaint. The story is moved by the protagonist’s obsessive desire to murder the old man because of his frustration with the old man’s eye. He attempts to commit the deed several times but is disappointed. On the eighth attempt he enters the old man’s room again and this time the   latter awakens and sits up. The light from the protagonist’s lamp hits the blue eye. He imagines that he hears the old man’s heart beating louder and smothers the old man to death. He chops the body to pieces and buries the pieces under the floorboards to hide his crime. However, when the policemen come to investigate the scream heard by the neighbor he imagines that he still hears the beating heart from underneath the floorboards. Fearing that the policemen hear the beating as well, he confesses to his crime and begs them to unfasten the boards and dig up the body. Works Cited Poe, Edgar Allan. The Complete Illustrated Stories and Poems. UK: Bounty Books, 1994. How to cite A Synopis of The Tell-Tale Heart, Papers

Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Policies, Arsenal and Problems Essay Example

Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Policies, Arsenal and Problems Essay The end of the Cold War signaled conclusion of the nuclear rivalry between the then two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. This was a propitious event for global security. Many predicted this to be the end of history. While there was relative peace for a decade or so, there has been unending debate over recession of the threat of nuclear war. While commonly the United States and the Western Allies have been regarded as more responsible possessors of nuclear weapons, unfolding of Russian nuclear doctrine and policy provides greater confidence in exercise of responsibility by Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the successor state the Russian Federation with little choice but to follow Soviet-era policy in relation to nuclear weapons, but thought was given to revising strategies to meet the new and emerging threats. Basically this meant pursuing deterrence strategy as a means of maintaining international order. This is important for both i nternal and external policy of the Russian Federation. Nuclear weapons give Russia the status it needs to be called a great power and for the Government of the day a sense of keeping a national security asset as an important goal post. A detailed analysis of Russian nuclear policy in the light of past experience, change of leadership in Russia post Cold War, current and possible future policy directions is thus essential.History of Nuclear Weapons PolicyAt the end of the Second World War, the US was the only nation in the world possessing nuclear weapons and they thought it could offset the superiority Soviet forces had in Europe. The US also thought the atomic bomb could be used as a political pressure point against Joseph Stalin to gain concessions in negotiations in the aftermath of the Second World War. But in August 1949 the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb, thus bringing to fore the philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This was the main theory underlying the two superpowers quest to develop new nuclear weapons and delivery systems during the cold war. While the Soviet Union had the bomb it did not have the capability like the US to deliver these weapons to the chosen target. First aircraft and then intercontinental ballistic missiles became the chosen systems of delivery of nuclear weapons.Given the state of relations between the US and the USSR at the end of the war, it was natural that latter decided to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems to match that of the US. Of course, the Soviets lagged behind in technology and therefore could never really catch up. But for them the employment of nuclear weapons was for deterrence purposes. And this meant keeping forces ready for massive retaliation, should the US or its allies launch a first strike on Soviet soil.Cold War DimensionsDuring the Cold War the main aim of possessing nuclear weapons was to deter a nuclear or massive conventional attack from the enemy from the other end of th e East-West divide. Throughout the Cold War, the main aim of the US was to contain the spread of communism. This was done at various levels military, political, economic and ideological. When Stalin died in 1953, there appeared to be a chance that a cooling down of tempers would take place, but tensions increased again when Nikita Krushchev was removed from power. Through the Cold War, the US assumed that it had nuclear superiority. But this failed to prevent the Soviet Union from indulging in nuclear brinkmanship during the Berlin crisis in 1961 and in Cuba in 1962.In 1962 when the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted, both the US and USSR came to realize for the first time what dangers pre-emption could lead to. The Soviet Union had installed medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, following which the US President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade. After a period of tension, the Soviets backed down and removed the missiles. What this cold war experience brought home to both the supe rpowers was the risks involved in playing one-upmanship with nuclear weapons.The collapse of the USSR in 1991 ended the Cold War. This reduced tensions between the two superpowers. But both countries still had a large nuclear arsenal in their possession. Additionally, with the end of the Cold War, the US became more concerned with the development of nuclear weapons by nations other than the former Soviet Union.Post-Cold War SituationAs a result of the political and financial fall out of the collapse of the USSR, the armed forces and in particular the nuclear forces in the Russian Federation suffered greatly.   The armed forces were downsized three times their original size in the 1990s. So was Russia’s nuclear arsenal. This was because Moscow just did not have the resources to maintain a nuclear force of ten thousand warheads and about twenty thousand tactical nuclear weapons. There was another issue of concern; this was the risk of continuing to stockpiling nuclear artille ry projectiles which were likely to prove dangerous to maintain and prove to be hazardous to Russias own troops, if accidental detonations occurred.The phased reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal in the early 1990s also coincided with the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Republics to the territory of the Russian Federation. This process was accelerated by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in July 1991 and nuclear weapons from Central and Eastern Europe were moved to Russia.Changes in policies from Yeltsin to PutinThere is no doubt that despite the collapse of the USSR as a superpower, the Russian Federation still holds nuclear weapons in high esteem. In fact, nuclear weapons are still a major politico-psychological symbol of great power status for Russia. That is why it is often seen that Russian leaders repeatedly remind the international community, and in particular the US, that Russia is still a nuclear power. This gives both a feeling of Russia’s str ategic independence from the US and the domestic leadership is assured of a sense of importance in being able to have control over the nuclear button.The first post-1991 change in nuclear policy was introduced in the doctrine of 1993, which allowed the â€Å"first use† of nuclear weapons by Russia. Till then, official policy, allowed the use of nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack.As a result of the post-collapse phase the Russian government adopted a series of measures in relation to nuclear weapons, including reductions in the size of strategic nuclear forces. But the basic premise that the sole purpose of possessing nuclear weapons was to deter a large-scale attack did not change. President Boris Yeltsin signed two major policy documents, one in 1997 and the second in 1998, both of which provided for drastic cuts in the nuclear arsenal. This aimed at getting rid of nuclear tipped missiles’ as their planned service life expired and modernization progr ams were curtailed to suit the reductions in the armed forces. But the theoretical debate within the Russian military, about the enlargement of NATO had consequences as it once again brought back to centre stage the role of nuclear weapons and created the ground for demonstrations of usage of nuclear weapons in a much broader range of threat scenarios.Two important documents provide analysts with the framework to understand the global implications of Russia’s nuclear weapons doctrine. The first one is the one titled, â€Å"Main Provisions of the Military Doctrine†, which Boris Yeltsin approved in November 1993. Then in 2000, Vladimir Putin approved another Military Doctrine.In the Yeltsin document the role of nuclear weapons was defined as â€Å"the removal of the danger of a nuclear war by means of deterring [other states] from unleashing an aggression against the Russian Federation and its allies† But keeping in mind the changes that had occurred in the post C old War war fighting scenarios, the doctrine, warned that even a limited war could become a global war. It also noted that even the limited use of nuclear weapons, say the use of tactical nuclear weapons, risked the outbreak of an all-out, nuclear war. The 1993 document did not spell out the right of â€Å"first use.† In fact there was no mention at all of the Cold War theory of ‘No-First-Use’ (Fedorov, 2002).The military doctrine of 2000 took the position that nuclear weapons were to be used for deterrence and not for aggression. The right to use nuclear weapons was reserved for retaliation against both conventional as well as nuclear aggression. Several things can be adduced from the 2000 document. (Fedorov, 2002). First, it has a clear geo-political message, implying a broader political role for Russia’s nuclear weapons. Second, Russia spelled out its willingness to use nuclear weapons first in response to a conventional attack.Additionally, like in the case of the US, Russia expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).   What the Putin document sought to really do was to broaden the conflict spectrum in which nuclear weapons could be used. Armed conflict, intra-state or inter-state; local or limited wars; regional conflicts; and global wars – all these are situations in which the use of nuclear weapons is envisaged.Nuclear weapons are associated with the last two postulates, but the threat of using them in the Russian context is also supposed to be prevalent to ensure that one type of war does not escalate to another. President Boris Yeltsin for example, explicitly referred to nuclear weapons during an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) summit in late 1999, to suggest that external forces should not get involved in the second war in Chechnya.Current and Future ProspectsThe 2003 â€Å"White Paper† of the Russian Federation postulates two missions for nuclear weapons: deterrence of an attack against Russia and de-escalation of a conflict in case deterrence fails. In contrast to the earlier document, the new guidance elaborates on these missions in considerable detail. (Sokov, 2004)Given the experience of the Cold War, and post-1991 situation, the Russian Federation’s attitude towards the US, remains highly emotive. There are also complex interplays of geo-politics and domestic considerations, which govern Russian nuclear weapons policy in its relations with the US. The 2003 White Paper calls for a partnership with the US a â€Å"part of the solution† to the security problems afflicting the world. But at the same time it is argued that Russia (read its nuclear forces) are the only thing preventing the final destruction of international order as it currently stands. In fact the White Paper states that only the Russian armed forces can ensure global stability. (Sokov, 2004)What emerges from a study of the 2003 White Paper is that Russia wants to ensure that no force pressure and aggression is attempted against it or its allies. And, in case aggression of some sort does takes place, the new doctrine guarantees the defense of sovereignty, territorial integrity and other vital national interests of Russia. The 2003 White Paper gives an indication of how Russia will react to shifts in US nuclear weapons policy. It was projected by the White Paper that by 2007-2008, Russian Strategic Forces would consist of ten missile divisions. The 2003 document and subsequent remarks by Russian leaders provide an indication that Russia intends to keep its options open in preparing plans for the future of its nuclear triad.Another issue which will shape Russian nuclear policy in the years ahead is the ballistic missile shield planned by the United States in the close proximity of Russia in Czech Republic and other areas. The contours of this are not yet very clear, hence these cannot be c overed herein. However the debate has to be followed to enable understanding nuances of change that may ensue in Russian nuclear doctrine.ConclusionThe core of Russian nuclear weapons policy, i.e., nuclear deterrence, remains very much in place. It also determines the nature and state of Russia’s relations with the US, giving Moscow a measure of self-confidence. Nuclear weapons also remain underlying element of relations with China. Clearly, given past experience it is clear that Russia will determine the future shape of its nuclear policy depending on the developments that the US makes in developing more â€Å"usable† nuclear weapons. At the end of 2005, Russia still had around 7,200 active nuclear warheads and an estimated 8,800 inactive nuclear warheads. The state of the strategic forces that maintain these and are responsible for their delivery in case of a conflict is open to question. Additionally, issues of safety and security of these weapons, the nuclear weapo ns facilities and delivery systems continue to dog Russia. Still the very presence of these numbers of weapons on Russian soil sends a signal across the world.While international terrorism and non-proliferation are viewed as being important threats to Russia’s national security, the military in the Russian Federation still views US military capability as a threat and plans for it. This indicates a continuing vulnerability within the Russian establishment about its own capabilities. And that is why nuclear weapons are still on top the security agenda. In the second nuclear age, new uncertainties are emerging which will challenge the ingenuity of the Russian state as it attempts to handle the nuclear genie in all its manifestations.;

J.D. Salinger essays

J.D. Salinger essays Jerome David Salinger was born at NY Nursery and Childs Hospital in 1919. His fathers name was Sol and his mothers name was Miriam. He also has an older sister whose name is Doris. His father was Jewish and his mother was Irish Catholic. Being half Jewish was a conflict for J.D. J.D. had a very distant relationship with his father, who worked for a meat and cheese business. He was sent to Poland as a child to see that end of the meat business. He was so disgusted by the slaughterhouses that he decided to take a different career path, rather than inherit the family business like his father wanted him to do. This also led to him becoming a vegetarian. Another reason he and his father had a bad relationship was because his father was Jewish and J.D. didnt want to be classified as a Jew because people were openly racist against Jews in the 30s and 40s. He and his fathers relationship got so bad that he didnt bother attending his funeral. J.D. grew up in Manhattan. He attended Valley Forge Military Academy, which is in Pennsylvania. He got sent to military school for flunking out of two private schools. His mother took him to the entrance interview and he was accepted two days later. He was the manager of the fencing team. He succeeded in military school and enjoyed it. His enjoyment of military school soon ended when World War II began. In World War II, J.D. would see on average 50 of his fellow soldiers die in a day. He said sometimes he would see as many as 200 of them die. For the first couple weeks of the war, 75% of the soldiers in his unit died, and that percentage eventually grew to 125%. After graduating from the military academy, Salinger went to NYU briefly. He later left because he did not apply himself. He then went to Ursinus College. He said he enjoyed it because it wasnt an Ivy League school. His friends say that he was a loner and ...

The Vietnam War Essay

The Vietnam War Essay The Vietnam War Essay 1. The French were involved in a war of Indochina prior to the American involvement. Trace the causes of this conflict and describe the key events and general course of the French Indochina War. Traditionally, the First Indochina war started in the French Indochina in 1946 and ended in 1954. The war was a fighting or conflict between forces from France and their Viet Minh opponents. Numerous factors were involved in the conflict including the French Far East Expeditionary Corps from the French Union led by France. The Vietnamese national army supported the French against the Viet Minh whose leaders were Vo Nguyen Giap and Ho Chi Minh. The large part of this conflict occurred in the northern region of Vietnam called Tonkin, although the fighting engulfed the rest of the nation, spreading to the protectorates of the French Indochina in Cambodia and Laos (Young, 1991). After the French reoccupation in Indochina after the Second World War, the region being in control of the Japanese, the Viet Minh started a protest or rebellion against the French authority that was in control of a number of French colonies in Indochina. The few initial years of the conflict involved rural uprising that was increasingly low key against the French. Nevertheless, after the communists from China arrived in the Vietnamese northern border in 1949, the fighting took another turn and became a conventional war between two forces that were armed with modern weapons (Jian, 1993). The forces of the French Union included several forces from the rest of the former empire including Tunisia, Algeria, Laotian, Moroccan, Vietnamese, and Cambodian ethnic minorities. While the plan of pushing the troops of Viet Minh into launching a war on the excellently defended base was validated, the lack of materials for construction, air cover, and tanks prevented an effective defense, leading to a decisive defeat of the French forces. The Geneva conference made a provisional decision to divide Vietnam into two regions, the north, and south. The northern region was the Vietnam democratic republic under Ho Chi Minh, and the south was the Vietnam state under Bao Dai (Jian, 1993). 2. Explain how the American involvement in Vietnam was a consequence of the Cold War, including how the Truman Doctrine was related to initial U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Anticommunist sentiments in the United States were the main factors elucidating on the participation of the U.S. in Vietnam. First, America believed that overt aggression from the communists in Asia posed a significant and direct threat to its interests in the continent. It is clear that Indochina was the main region in Asia challenged by the presence and aggression of the communists. As a result, the decision of 1950 to provide direct help to the region was a crucial policy choice allowing and accepting the responsibility of the United States in preventing the hegemony of communists in the Asia. This direction of the policy was subsequently concentrated on in the following years, first by the Korean War and then by the escalations between Kennedy and Johnson during the 1960s (Gettleman et al., 1995). It was also applied and used to both the expansible powers of the communists. Concerning China, the United States was directly worried about its involvement in regions as Korea because it feared that such an attack would determine the involvement of the Chinese in Indochina. Furthermore, when it came to the Soviet Union, the United States feared the Russians were keen on attaining domination over the world. All these fears are what led to the crucial policy paper NSC 68 that urged for a sufficient military protection or shield to curb the expansion and growth of the Soviet Union and stop the aggressive actions that where directed by the Soviet Union. Consequently, the paper policy was crucial as it represented the practical extension of the Doctrines by Truman (Gettleman, et al., 1995). Other than the importance of foreign political aspects as critical determinants of the involvement of America in Vietnam, the factors like its domestic situation were also crucial. First, the McCarthyism wave had swept through the nation during the 1950s. This trend depended on the argument that the U.S. had suffered numerous failures during the Cold War, not because of limitations of power, but through the significant presence of communist voices in its government, an accusation equal to treason. Because of this, the administration had to take actions to defend itself from allegations of being too weak to fight communism. Furthermore, the Truman administration experienced a lot of pressure to come up with policies that would prove its resolve of anticommunism. Such policies included containment that would favor an unwavering stance in Indochina to stop the expansion of Communism (McCormick, 1989). 3. Describe the rise of Diema to power, his conduct as a leader of South Vietnam, and his demise. The first South Vietnamese president or leader was called Diem. After the wake of defeat and withdrawal of the French from Indochina because of the accords of a Geneva conference in 1954, the leader led a crucial effort to build the Vietnam republic. The leader achieved victory during the 1955 plebiscite that was increasingly deceitful after accumulating considerable support from the United States because of his strong anti- communism ideologies. He was a Roman catholic, and because of this, he pursued policies that were religiously oppressive and biased against the Montgnard natives and its majority components of Buddhists. However, his policies were widely challenged and met with protests. Amid the numerous religious protests and disagreements that caught the attention of the whole world, the leader lost the support of the American patrons (Jacobs, 2006). He was assassinated together with his brother. Their killer was an aide of Duong van Minh a general of the ARVN called Nguyenn Van Nhung. He was killed during a coup in 1963 that deposed his administration. As the crisis with the Buddhists increased in 1963, Vietnamese nationalists who were non-communist and the military started to get ready for a coup. Minh and his supporters overthrew Diem’s government in a quick coup. With only the palace guard staying to protect the leader and his brother, the organizers of the coup called to the palace asking the leader to surrender in exchange for exile. However, Diem and a number of his close allies escaped to Cholon where they were captured. The two brothers were killed in the back of a personal carrier by the captain with orders from their leader, Minh (Jacobs, 2006). 4. Was Ho Chi Minh more of a nationalist that a communist? Explain your response by citing historical evidence that supports your claim. Many people in the U.S. strongly believe that Ho Chi Minh was a staunch communist. The public was flooded with tales of the leader’s visit to China and Russia. There were stories of how the communist support for him was used to take over and establish a stronghold of the communists in the southeastern part of Asia. However, many individuals fail to hear the rest of the information (Chafe, 1986). Under his leadership, Vietnam had some sort of support and an alliance with the U.S. during the Second World War the Japanese, was their common enemy and gave them a common ground where the communists provided support to the dismissal of another outside invader. After the war ended, the leader set up structures in the government in the country assuming that the country would go back to being a sovereign state (Demma, 1989). The leader himself made several overtures to America and other nations for support as he sought independence for his country. Even the declaration of Vietnam of independence showed the nationalist views of Minh. He realized that America was not going to provide him support for independence, so as a pragmatist, he turned to China and Russia for support. As it follows, he walked a thin line between being a communist and nationalist, and played the three countries without letting go of his independence. Many believe that his ability was a crucial indication of his diplomacy. On the other side of this equation, the leader was a thorough and true communist. He breathed and lived ideologies of communists and was ruthless when it came to attaining them. Many think that he was a contradiction of his ideologies. He was known as an ultimate nationalist and an excellent communist leader (Demma, 1989). 5. In what ways was Johnson’s escalation of the American involvement in Vietnam a continuation of Kennedy’s policies? In what ways, if any, were Johnson’s decisions related to Vietnam a departure from Kennedy’s policies? Johnson’s escalation of the involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam was not a continuation of the policies of Kennedy. As Johnson took over the presidency after Kennedy died, at first he did not consider Vietnam a priority and emphasized on the creation of his Great Society and social programs that would result to social progression. However, his priorities soon changed when he declared war against communism in 1963. This declaration came when Vietnam was deteriorating particularly after the coup that led to the death of Diem. Johnson reversed the disengagement policy by Kennedy from the region by withdrawing a thousand troops with his NSAM to accentuate the war. Johnson saw the Vietnam War as a way to appease his personal coalitional corporate base of power and to make use of the patriotism tide to falsify a consensus in the domestic arena to make way for his personal policies (Schandler, 1977). When it came to the military goals, Johnson wanted to stop the spread of communism ideas from China, and that together with the war’s gradual escalation could be won without the approval of the international forces. He depended on the ideology that a slow war escalation could keep people from developing an interest in Vietnam. Furthermore, the gradual escalation would maintain the Chinese and Soviet Union from declaring war against America. He made crucial miscalculations by choosing to escalate the American intervention in Vietnam. He used a lot of funds to fight in a war that he could not win. Kennedy had different policies from Johnson regarding Vietnam in a number of areas. For example, he did not rely on American resources to win the war in Vietnam, unlike Johnson. His policy towards Vietnam depended on the assumption that the forces of Diem would ultimately defeat the Vietnamese guerrillas without the involvement of the U.S. He did not support the deployment of American forces because he knew doing so would lead to widespread negative political and military effects. This is different from Johnson who deployed a significant number of American troops in Vietnam (Schandler, 1977). At you can order a custom essay on Vietnam War topics. All essays are written by highly qualified writers from scratch!

Physiology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Physiology - Essay Example The reason is that at higher altitudes, there is lesser amount of oxygen for the body and muscles. Therefore, the excess oxygen will help avoid the early production of lactic acid and keep heart rate lower even when the athlete is working harder at sea level. (Smith, 2005) The trick to high altitude training is a process known as acclimatization. This means that athletes must give time to their bodies to get used to the increase in altitude, and decrease in oxygen levels in the atmosphere. For instance, when an athlete reaches, say 5000 feet, he must spend some days there so that the body acclimatizes to the conditions present there before moving on to higher altitudes. After acclimatization to higher altitudes, when the athlete returns back to sea level, his endurance level and performance is better. As the oxygen levels at higher altitudes decrease, there are a number of changes that the body undergoes in the process of acclimatization. Firstly, the depth of respiration increases. The pulmonary arteries go through an increase in pressure, forcing blood into those parts of the lung which are not utilized under normal circumstances. (Curtis, 1999) Along with increasing the production of red blood cells to carry oxygen, the body also steps up the production of a specific enzyme that eases the discharge of oxygen from hemoglobin to the body tissue. (Curtis, 1999) As we know, the air in the atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% water vapor, carbon dioxide and other gases. This is the proportion of gases you inhale during normal breathing. However, 6% of oxygen is breathed out together with carbon dioxide and other waste products. (Science Fair 2003: Does Exercise Affect the Amount of Carbon Dioxide Exhaled, 2003) During exercise, the body needs more energy which is provided to it through the chemical reaction of oxygen and glucose. This, in turn, means that during exercise, the body needs more

'Does Country Matter' - Summary and Critque Essay

'Does Country Matter' - Summary and Critque - Essay Example a) The question is, how much does country difference actually explain the variations in achievements of foreign affiliates To answer this, the elements they defined were as follows: Country effects, Industry effects, Multinational Corporation (MNC) effects, Affiliates effects and the Years observed, analyzing these to see how they all contributed to the average return or business success achieved by the foreign affiliates. They hypothesized that country had an important role to play and had not been explored fully in earlier research. b) Methodology The study is described as unique by the researchers because it uses performance of foreign affiliates as the primary unit of analysis, the country effects variables contained in it, and non-U.S. data, only Japanese MNCs. Data was taken from the Trend Survey of Overseas Business Activities (Trend Survey), annually conducted by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The companies used were: either subsidiary (MNC has 10% capital invested),sub-subsidiary (MNC has 50% invested) or where a sub-subsidiary has 50% capital invested in the foreign affiliate company. 12,000 total, over 6 years were examined, using 616 c) Results and conclusions suggest that country effects are almost as great as industry effects, implying that the host country has great impact when determining performance, wi