North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (or as they say in French le Organisation du traità © de lAtlantique Nord (OTAN)), began as a military alliance of governments due to the North Atlantic Treaty ( 4 April 1949). From its inception NATO, with headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, has focused on a structure cooperative defence. It translates this structure as having the member states responding to a joint and mutual defence against attack by a non- NATO aggressor. From the original 12 member states there are now 28 participants in this organization dedicated to keeping the alliance strong and vital in a changing world order. Initially, NATO began as a political body, more prone to discussion rather than action. This changed when the Korean War spurred the member states into action and they set up a military command structure under the leadership of two U.S. supreme commanders to effectively deal with the situation that was brewing in Korea. As the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated the organizations goal was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.[4] The alliances of WWII with the Russians had taken a beating as the battles became ideological with communism on one side and democracy as represented by the west and NATO was on the other. As for the Germans, there was a basic distrust since they had been responsible for both world wars and it was only four years after their surrender that NATO was formed. Eventually Germany became and is a vital and full-fledged member of the organization. The alliance had some initial credibility issues, since the ever changing relationships between European members and the US were in flux (as always). There was a significant feat that NATO would be unable to stand together against a Soviet invasion. As a sign of its coolness towards the alliance, and basically as a vote of no confidence, the French developed their own nuclear arsenal and withdrew from NATOs military structure in 1966 and hasnt rejoined that aspect of NATO since. In 1955, in retaliation to NATO, the Soviet Bloc countries started their own alliance The Warsaw Pact, and thereby created a common antipathy towards each alliance. In 1989, precipitated by the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification of Germany, NATO focused its attention on the turmoil of the Balkan states and the troubles brewing in that region. At the same time NATO forged stronger and more durable associations with their former Warsaw Pact adversaries and succeeded so well that quite a few of these states joined the alliance between 1999 and 2004. On 1 April 2009, the NATO membership grew it its present 28 states with the entrance of Albania and Croatia into the alliance.[5] Due to the 11 September, 2001 attacks against New York and Washington, NATO has refocused its mission to fight terrorism, instead of the Eastern block and re purposed itself to meet new and more difficult confrontations in other regions of the world. The alliance has provided troops to Afghanistan as well as trainers to Iraq in order to fulfill its treaty obligations to a member state, in this case the United States, that has been attacked. As part of its ever evolving nature, NATO and the European Union (many of whose members are also members of NATO) signed a package of agreements called The Berlin Plus Agreement on 16 December 2002. The crux of this agreement gives the EU the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wants to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act-the so-called right of first refusal.[6] Thus if NATO, as the alliance refused to act in a crisis, the EU therefore has the option to respond. NATO members provide 70-plus% of the worlds defence spending.[7] The United States contributes 43% the total military spending of the world[8] with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy spending an additional 15%.[9] The remaining alliance countries make up the remainder of the 12% that accounts for this huge outlay of funds, materials and personnel, making NATO ready to meet any crisis. History The history of NATO is a history of treaties that came in the wake of the Second World War. In 1948 he Treaty of Brussels, signed by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom was the forerunner to the NATO agreement. The signing of this treaty coupled with the insidious Soviet Berlin Blockade gave rise to the Western European Unions Defence Organization that same year. [10] There was an understanding though that in order to thwart the rising military power of the USSR, the United States had to be brought into the picture to enable the west to have a solid counterbalance of power. This strategy precipitated a need for a new military alliance. Talks began at once and in less than a year, the North Atlantic treaty was signed between the 5 signatories of the Treaty of Brussels and the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. There was a lot of hostility regarding the treaty and it even caused some Icelanders to advocate and participate in a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949, just days before the final signatures on for April. The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm ) The phrase Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s) has raised many questions over the years. Member states are obligated to respond to a crisis concerning the alliance or any one of its members, however these states have the freedom to choose how they will respond. (Hence Frances decision to withdraw from the military structure, as it never wants to commit its troops to a fight) This clause negates Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels that states that the members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the article limits the organizations scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the Falklands War did not result in NATO involvement. However, there was justification for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars involvement as the organizations that attacked the Member state, the US , were not national and merely located in another location . With NATO, some consistency of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology has been brought into existence. This has often meant that European member countries adopting U.S. practices and techniques. There are about 1300 Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) codifying these standards. For instance the 7.62ÃÆ'-51 NATO rifle cartridge of the 1950s became the standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries while Fabrique Nationale de Herstals FAL was NATO rifle in Europe and used until the early 1990s. In addition to consistent firearms and rifles, signals became standardized, enabling any NATO aircraft to land at any NATO base without confusion. Even the NATO phonetic alphabet has made its beyond NATO into civilian use. Cold War Perhaps the defining moment in early NATO was the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. This police action became a critical test for the alliance as it confronted what appeared to be all Communist countries working together to destabilize the Koreas. This forced NATO into developing military plans.[11] This war was also the precipitator to the nascent cold war between the West and the East and their ideological disparity. In 1952, NATO began to codify its requirements for a Long Term Defence Plan. The Lisbon conference first suggested that there be 96 divisions dedicated to the alliance, however in 1953, this number was devolved to 35 divisions, with an increased dependence on nuclear weaponry to make up the difference. There were 15 at the ready divisions located in Central Europe and Italy and Scandinavia hosted another ten. Another outcome of the Lisbon Conference was that the Chief Civilian post of Secretary General of NATO was created (Baron Hastings Ismay was appointed). (12, 13) By September of 52, the first NATO exercises were held and Operation Mainbrace brought 200 ships and over 50,000 troops and sailors to practice defending Norway and Denmark. It was a huge success. By the end of that first year, Greece and Turkey joined the alliance. This forced some very contentious negotiations, with the United States and Britain disputing as to the logistics of bringing these two countries into the command structure.[14] All through the controversy that was openly under discussion, covert operations were underway to set up a solid resistance in case of a successful Soviet invasion (Operation Gladio). This resistance was original to the Western European Union, however it seemed more logical and effective to transfer these plans and operations to NATO control. Despite the disputes there were signs of unity a bonds began to grow among the different between NATOs armed forces so that the troops themselves were more cohesive. This included the NATO Tiger Association and competitions such as the Canadian Army Trophy for tank gunnery among the different units and countries. By 1954, the Soviet Union felt that it should become a part of NATO in order to keep the peace in Europe.[15] This did not sit well with the NATO member countries, as they feared that the real motivation of the Soviet Unions was weaken the alliance from within, sewing discord, so they rejected the proposal. However, despite earlier declarations of keeping the Germans down, the admission of West Germany into NATO on 9 May 1955 was described as a decisive turning point in the history of our continent by Halvard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway at the time.[16] German military forces and manpower were a deciding factor into allowing their former enemy into the alliance. Without the extra soldiers fielding enough forces to resist a Soviet invasion[17] would have been impossible. The upshot of this admission though was the Warsaw Pact, signed on 14 May 1955 (6 days later) with the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and East Germany as members. This formal response to Germanys admission into NATO , defined in no uncertain terms, the two sides of the Cold War. French withdrawal Charles de Gaulles presidency of France from 1958 caused a constant strain on the NATO alliance. De Gaulle ongoing objections to the United States role in the organization was the basis of his never ceasing disputation with NATO. He felt that the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom was undermining the alliance and he wanted France to be the predominant member state. De Gaulle wrote to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, where he basically demanded a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom in NATO. He also stipulated that NATOs coverage be expanded cover French geographical areas, most notably French Algeria, so that NATO could assist Frances counter-insurgency against Algerian rebels. De Gaulle did not like the response Eisenhower and Macmillan gave him so he began to pull away from a unified alliance and create independent defences for his country. He wanted to play both sides of the alliance in case East Germany invaded West Germany. He was determined to have a separate peace with the Eastern bloc and had no desire to involve France in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. In 1959, despite being a signatory to the alliance, De Gaulle began his severing his allegiance to the alliance. In March 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean Fleet from NATO command. In June 1959, de Gaulle proscribed foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. By this act, the United States began transferring military aircraft out of France and returning control of all air force bases that NATO operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967. De Gaulle wanted only his own military and nuclear arms on his own soil, despite his supposed solidarity to the alliance. In 1962, during the Cuban Missle Crisis de Gaulle showed unity with NATO, however afterwards he sustained his unrelenting determination of creating his own independent defence through the removal of Frances Atlantic and Channel fleets from the NATO command structure. Therefore it was no surprise to anyone within the alliance that by 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATOs integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. All his actions caused the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) to move from Rocquencourt, near Paris, to Casteau, Belgium, by 16 October 1967. While France remained a member of the alliance, its removal on the surface seemed to preclude any sort of committed defence of Europe from possible Communist attack. On the other hand, France did have forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War. A chain of clandestine agreements between U.S. and French officials, ( Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements) delineated the way French forces would fit together and return to NATOs command in case hostilities commenced during the Cold War. [18] Although on the surface France and DeGaulle had manipulated themselves into an independent there was nevertheless a way for France to unite and fight with NATO in case of war. It wasnt until 1995 that the French position on the military structure of NATO began to change. Dà ©tente NATO was able to keep from actual military engagements as an alliance throughout most of the Cold War. The organization was prepared in case of such a scenario. In 1968, NATO argued that since the United States controlled nuclear weapons until a decision to go to war and NATOs own nuclear sharing arrangements with the US were no in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty that was being signed. Since few states actually knew what NATOs nuclear position actually was, whatever the alliance declaimed was considered truth and there was no challenge to their stance as far as controlling nuclear weapons was concerned. NATO countries officially defined two balancing aims of the Alliance on 30 May 1978. The first was to follow their initial directive and maintain security throughout the alliance. The second was to pursue dà ©tente. The purpose of these two complementary aims was to match the NATO defences to those of the Warsaw Pacts offensive capacity without inciting an extra arms race. In 1979, since the Warsaw Pact countries built up their nuclear capabilities in Europe, NATO approved the deployment of U.S. GLCM cruise missiles and Pershing II theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. These new warheads strengthened the western position regarding nuclear disarmament. This Dual Track policy meant that peace was pursued on one hand while meeting weapons build up on the other. Essentially it was a game of one-upmanship conducted by both sides. This occurred again in 1983-84, when NATO responded to the positioning of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, by deploying modern Pershing II missiles. These missiles have the ability to hit military targets quite hard such as tank formations, should there be a war. These dual actions led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe in light of the fact that the danger level ratcheted up in case peace talks were unsuccessful. Escalation Most of Europe was divided between the two alliances. Members of NATO were often shown in blue, with members of the Warsaw Pact shown in red on any maps depicting their allegiances. President Ronald Reagan of the United States was determined that the buildup of the tension between the US and USSR should be exacerbated even more by having NATO deploy those Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe, primarily West Germany. These Pershing II missiles are tactical nuclear weapons intended to strike targets on the battlefield in the event that the Soviets invaded West Germany. The Soviets fed into the Reagan paranoia and played into his deployment plans on 1 September 1983, when they shot down a South Korean passenger airliner when it crossed into Soviet airspace. Reagan characterized the shooting down of the plane a massacre. With world opinion on their side the U.S., galvanized support for the deployment of the missiles. This deployment stood in place until the later accords between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev were reached and the hegemony of the Soviet Union began to dismantle.. Gamesmanship in the membership was still around although during the late 1970s and early 80s there was some stagnancy. In 1974, when the Turks invaded Cyprus, Greece withdrew its forces from NATOs military command structure. Finally though, in 1980, they were readmitted (Turkish cooperation was necessary) Finally in May 1982, Spain was able to join the alliance as its former dictator had died and the newly democratic country was free to become part of NATO. Spain joined the alliance. In November 1983, NATO maneuvers simulated a nuclear launch and it caused widespread panic in the USSR. General Secretary Yuri Andropov, who was in ill health at the time, was worried that the maneuvers, were actually a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in East Germany and Poland were placed on alert. It was a tense situation and although U.S. intelligence felt that the Soviet response was merely a propaganda effort, there are many who feel that ailing Andropov was convinced that a NATO first strike was imminent. Post Cold War When the Cold War ended and the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991, the main adversary of NATO was gone. There was a strategic reassessment of NATOs purpose. While this reassessment and realignment of the nature and tasks of the alliance were underway, the ultimate result is that NATO has expanded into Eastern Europe and former Warsaw Pact countries are becoming part of the alliance. NATO has also extended its activities into new areas. In 1990, NATO welcomed the German reunification. This meant that the former East Germany was part of the Federal Republic of Germany and therefore alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. There was still a need for Soviet approval of a united Germany to remain in NATO so it was stipulated that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the eastern part of the country (the former East Germany). Because of this new treaty, there has been an ongoing controversy between scholars and diplomats regarding the expansion of the NATO Alliance. Once scholar, Stephen F. Cohen argued in 2005 that a commitment was given that NATO would never expand further east,[19]. On the other hand but according to Robert Zoellick,( then a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process,) feels that Cohen is wrong as there was no formal commitment of the sort made in the treaty regarding any other country besides Germany.[20] In May 2008, The Daily Telegraph held an interview with Mikhail Gorbachev who felt along with Cohen that there was a commitment made. Gorbachev said the Americans promised that NATO wouldnt move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted.[21] NATOs military structure was cut back and reorganized in the post Cold War era, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe agreed between NATO and the then still existent Warsaw Pact, mandated specific reductions in personnel, weapons, and nukes. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the military balance in Europe shifted and this was recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. Finally in 1995, after nearly a 30 year absence, France rejoined NATOs Military Committee in 1995. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reformed Frances military position and enabled the country to return to full membership on 4 April 2009. This date also saw France rejoin the integrated military command of NATO, even as it still maintains its own nuclear deterrent independently of the alliance.[22] Balkans interventions After years of military preparedness and no fighting during the Cold War, NATOs first military operation came during the former Yugoslavia civil war. It was called Operation Sharp Guard and ran from June 1993-October 1996. NATO provided maritime enforcement of the arms embargo, and set ic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Six months into the embargo and blockade, (28 February 1994) NATO took its first military action, by shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft. These planes violated a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATOs Operation Deliberate Force, a bombing campaign started in August, 1995, against the Army of the Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica massacre. Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission, started in 1993, continued the end of December 1995. The NATO air strikes forced an end to the war in Bosnia. This culminated in the the Dayton Agreement, that provided NATO with authority to deployed peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, first named IFOR and then SFOR. This deployment ran from December 1996 to December 2004. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations in appreciation of its troops efforts in a difficult endeavor. NATO was now a fully fledged military organization that was as capable as any single member nation on conducting a military operation to successful conclusion. What had been words on paper was now put into practice. From 1994 to 1997, NATO and its neighbors set up several forums for dialogue in order to keep conflict at a minimum. The Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council were all results of these forums and led the way to a more inclusive membership in the alliance. On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO and their final admission occurred in 1999. By 1998, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established to keep communications open and free flowing between the former adversaries. NATO saw its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War, where it waged an 11-week bombing campaign, called Operation Allied Force. This was again against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the Serbians massacred and cracked- down on Albanian civilians in Kosovo. While a formal declaration of war never took place the NATO action was successful. Yugoslavian leader Slobodan MiloÃ…Â ¡eviĆ¡ agreed to NATOs demands and Kosovos native Albanians were free to stay or go. During Kosovo, NATO deployed one of its international reaction forces, the ACE Mobile Force (Land), to deliver humanitarian aid to Kosovan refugees. [23] NATO then established the KFOR, a NATO-led force under a United Nations mandate that operated the military mission in Kosovo. In August-September 2001, the alliance also mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia.[24] NATOs work in the military arena was expanding and becoming vital to international interests This expansion and necessity led the United States, the United Kingdom, and most other NATO countries to oppose efforts that require the U.N. Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, as had happened against Serbias invasion into Kosovo in 1999. France and some others claimed that the alliance needed U.N. approval of course probably more as a way to thwart the US/UK more than any ideological reasons. The U.S./U.K. side that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia and thereby condemned all those ethnic Albanians to slaughter. Russia and China could in fact exercise these same vetoes whenever future conflicts arose where NATO intervention was required. This would essentially cripple and the purpose of the organization. NATO adopted the Alliance Strategic Concept during its Washington Summit in April 1999 that emphasized conflict prevention and crisis management[25] as a prelude to any sort of military intervention unless required and approved by the alliance. After the 11 September attacks Everything changed after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. At this time, and for the first time, NATO invoked Article 5 of the NATO Charter. The Article states: Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . Essentially, an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all members. This invocation of Article Five was ratified on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[26] Eight official actions were taken by NATO to respond to the attacks. Among them were Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Operation Active Endeavour is to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general in the Mediterranean . Despite this early show of solidarity within the alliance there was another crisis barely more than a year later. France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto. So that all efforts to assist that member fell into abeyance and should Turkey be attacked, there is no agenda in place to quickly form a reprisal. On the other hand the invasion of Afghanistan provided NATO with a chance for a more public unity. On 16 April 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement requested this action and all NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATOs history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. By January 2004, NATO appointed Minister Hikmet Çetin, of Turkey, as the Senior Civilian Representative (SCR) in Afghanistan to be responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance in Afghanistan. On 31 July 2006, a NATO-led force took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition and has been protecting the area since. Bowing to US Pressure, NATO even has set up a training program in Iraq to assist in that countrys efforts. NATOs involvement in both arenas has expanded its role in the war against terrorism and the alliance has been instrumental in assisting the now 8 year old conflicts in their efforts to bring the terror organizations in both countries to a halt.

A Discussion of Paulo Freire’s Banking Concept of Education Essay

Freire implies that teachers are only telling students what to know rather than conversting with them, which explains why Freire insists that â€Å"education is suffering from narration sickness†(Freire 71). This means that he believes that educators only fill student’s minds with information, that the teacher feels is important, without providing the students the meaning and personal relevance that information has. By using this method, the student is oppressed by the teacher and unable to fulfill a complete state of consciousness. I can remember several times in my educational experiences where I have been the â€Å"depository† in Freire’s Banking Concept of Education, but no experience is more relative than my Organic Chemistry class three years ago where I learned that problem-solving education is vastly superior to banking-education because it allows students to acquire true understanding of their world and the ability to reach consciousness. During the summer of 2009, I took a summer semester of Organic Chemistry at University of California Berkeley. When I first entered the lecture hall, there were masses of people fighting for seats and some even resided to sitting on the floor or going into the side room to watch the lecture on television. As soon as the clock hit 9:00 am, five faculty members walked into the room: Professor Francis and four Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs). From the start, Dr. Francis went over the course structure, what it entailed, and how we as students could obtain help. While he was going over the syllabus information, he made one point extremely clear: â€Å"I cannot answer your personal questions during lecture time. If you have questions, please visit me during my office hours or please ask one of the GSIs. † After making that point, he transitioned into his lecture on functional groups; however, I was not following him. I immediately knew that this would be a lecture-only class, and I knew that I would need to write down every single note, diagram, or graph he showed us and memorize it for future examinations. Freire would acclaim that I would become a â€Å"depository† because I would simply allow Professor Francis to deposit his ‘knowledge’ into my mind without further question or thought. I would become a slave, oppressed by the very person who was supposed to free me (Freire 74). Dr. Francis continued in his slide show and a large slide labeled ‘Hydrocarbons’ appeared on the screen, and below the title were several different organic hydrocarbon functional groups, such as alkenes, alkanes, alkynes, benzenes, and toluene. He discussed each hydrocarbon in great depth and showed us students how to recognize them based on their bond sequences and patterns, how they react in the presence of other organic molecules, and how their chemical bonds affect water. After an exhaustive lecture of copying everything he said into my 12Ãâ€"8 notebook, he announced that we must memorize all of the hydrocarbon groups, and to be able to recognize them for an exam setting. Never once did he explain what what makes them important. I raised my hand at the end of the lecture, and asked him what the application of hydrocarbons are in the ‘real-world’. He replied not to worry about that, and that we needed to be able to recognize them and know how they function chemically, not practically, and why would he take the time to explain how hydrocarbons function? In order for Dr. Francis to keep his job, Freire asserts that, â€Å"the teacher must assume all of his students as ignorant†(Freire 72). This implies that if Dr. Francis had gone straight to the point and explained why hydrocarbons were important in the real world and in a laboratory setting, he wouldn’t have a job. It was his job to pick out extremely detailed and ‘useless’ properties and functionalities of hydrocarbons and make them seem important to us. By continuing to explain and confuse us students, he was able to maintain a shroud of ignorance over the student body, and from this, he justifies his job as absolute. This is what Freire refers to as the â€Å"cycle of ignorance† that continuously allows the teacher to keep his job because society believes that the ignorant students need him for their self-betterment. For the next several weeks, I adhered to Dr. Francis’s ‘Banking Style of Education’, and it worked. I received an A on every exam and test I took because I memorized and accepted the information Dr. Francis gave me without second thought. Freire feels that my total submission to the instructor was the reason for my success because he suggests that â€Å"The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are†(Freire 72). Freire’s explanation worries me because to know is not to know. Just because I could recognize different functional groups, which in the banking concept would make me a better student, did not mean that I could apply my understanding of organic chemistry to a real life situation because I hadn’t been taught to apply the information to anything at all. My ignorance and inability to grasp the true meanings and concepts of organic chemistry became extremely clear in the laboratory because the lab is where students take all of their knowledge and apply it to solve a problem or set of problems. After the first quarter of the summer semester, the laboratory portion of the course opened. My first assignment was to estimate the bond angles of methane, and at first I had no idea what to do because I had only been instructed to recognize methane and its bonding patters. I was never asked to manipulate the molecule’s properties to gain further understanding, and this caused me to realize that I was flawed because the ‘knowledge’ that I acquired was not mine, but Dr. Francis’ deposits of impractical segments of knowledge. With no idea where to start my laboratory or how to assess the assignment, I asked the Teaching Assistant (TA) for help. She simply replied, â€Å"Think about what you know about methane’s properties, and manipulate your knowledge so you can measure the bond angle. Needless to say, this was not helpful because I had no idea how to apply my knowledge and understanding because I was not taught to. I was simply an object who, according to Freire, â€Å"is in the world,† implying that I was not conscious of my own being and awareness (Freire 78). This is why I allowed Dr. Francis to continue depositing information into me because he posed himself as my liberator, my educator, but he was my oppres sor. By not being able to use and apply my knowledge, my critical consciousness and inner will to understand began to diminish. This is why Freire announces, â€Å"The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world†(Freire 73). Freire implies that students lose the will power, the motivation, to develop awareness when they are force-fed information, so he argues that students must develop this ‘critical consciousness’ themselves through problem solving. This is when I realized that Dr. Francis couldn’t and won’t teach me how to understand what I have learned; I needed to learn how to apply and master the information I was taught by myself, not some other individual. Education is supposed to empower individuals; however, since I was ‘in-the-world’ I let the banking concept oppress me and my true understanding of knowledge. I failed the first Organic Chemistry lab. I didn’t know how to solve the problems and apply my knowledge, nor did I have the willpower to, so I simply gave up. I was incredibly frustrated after the first lab, not because I couldn’t get the right answer, but because I couldn’t apply my knowledge to solve the problem. I spent the next several lectures gathering notes, expanding on them, and making sense of the information; however, I was still unable to understand the information in practical terms. My frustration grew because I felt that all my efforts studying information and memorizing its contents was wasted. How could education provide all of this knowledge that we, as students, are unable to apply? What was the point of education? At the time, I felt education was society’s largest flaw because it wasted the time and severed the creativity students put into it. Freire agrees with me because he argues, â€Å"The capability of banking education is to minimize or annul the students’ creative power†(Freire 73). This implies that Freire agrees that education is flawed because it severs student creativity; although, it does not answer why we must learn meaningless and impractical information obtained in our lives. Freire responds that not everyone will find meaning through their education; however, he believes that people should continue to pursue the parts of education that students find interesting, such as in a higher education setting (Freire 76). I knew most of the information that I obtained in chemistry was impractical for most individuals and even myself in a day-to-day scenario, but chemistry was interesting to me. It was something that I wanted to pursue and gain further understanding of because every piece of information left me wanting more. Giving up and throwing my knowledge away was not an option because I wanted and worked my entire life to make sense of what I learned in this world, and it keeps on changing and reshaping every day. As a last effort, I went to the tutoring help desk at the university to get help, so I could understand my information and knowledge and apply it to the lab. I was assigned a tutor, Kevin, and he brought me and two other students into a small concealed 10Ãâ€"10 room with a large foldup table in the middle. We all sat down and Kevin asked us what we needed help with. The other students didn’t look like they were forced to be there and kept quiet, so I took the opportunity to obtain help. I told him that â€Å"I have a hard time applying the lecture notes in the lab. † Kevin explained that my situation was very typical because the lectures and exams were based on memorization where the labs relied on the interaction between what you know and how to solve the problem. He brought out an organic chemistry book and questioned, â€Å"Why is water polar? I immediately responded that water is polar because the oxygen atom has more elections than the hydrogen atoms at any one time giving the hydrogen molecules a positive charge and the oxygen a negative charge. Kevin told me that I was right, but this occurred due to the extreme differences in electronegativity. We continued to solve problems together and critique one another on our answers, and from this he was teaching me and I was teaching him. Freire would call this interaction, â€Å"problem-solving-education† because â€Å"The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students†(Freire 80). This implies that both teacher and student work together to solve problems, and by doing so, they gain a greater understanding of the topic. This is exactly what Kevin and I were doing because we were teaching each other and able to create a more significant understanding and meaning of chemistry that allowed me to visualize a topic and solve it logistically instead of memorizing the topic and solving it formulaically. This is why Freire belives that â€Å"the conditions under which knowledge at the level of the doxa is superseded by true knowledge, at the level of the logos†(Freire 81). Freire’s text implies that common knowledge and understanding (doxa) can be transformed into true mastery of the subject and reason (logos). Since Keven and I were taking basic information and each giving it new meaning in our problem-solving tutoring sessions, I was able to acquire a true mastery and understanding of chemistry. Working with Kevin several times a week gave me a true understanding and relation of chemistry, which allowed me to pass my lab course with an A. Overcoming the problems of the banking-concept and learning the problem-solving method changed my life forever. I took the problem-solving method that I learned with Kevin and applied it with other students, colleagues, professors, and friends, so I could continue to problem solve and gain true understanding of knowledge throughout my life. Problem-solving education continues to be vastly superior to banking-education because in addition to learning and understanding information, problem-solving-education forces individuals to retain information they acquire so they can apply for future use. Since I was able to take knowledge and apply my understanding of it, Freire would conclude this type of understanding as â€Å"being with the world†(Freire 78). Being with-the-world means that the individual is conscious of their surroundings and is able to fully interact in the world they are in. Instead of being an object or vessel, the individual is able to make conscious decisions and interpret the world as they see it. This induces self-freedom and liberation in a person because when a person learns something, they retain that information forever and no human being in the world can take that information away. It also provides a mental salvation because if the physical realm is too harsh to live in, those who have mastered problem-solving and acquired pure consciousness can escape from their physical realm into their consciousness where they have stored all of their memories, techniques, and information, and no person can get to them besides themselves.

Purchasing Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples

Purchasing Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples - Is it a Scam? Because of this, we'd suggest that all wills be proofread by means of a lawyer. If you're unsure what you will need to safeguard your loved ones, consult an attorney. The law of wills are somewhat more favourable which makes it possible for someone to compose a will that authorize their estate to be distributed in accordance with their own wishes. Have your lawyer offer you an estimate of those charges before authorizing the job. The court may not rule based on your wishes, so dying intestate is bad for your beneficiaries. In any case, improper choice of trustee is another huge mistake you have to be mindful about while preparing the trust. An executor typically is named in the will to administer this, and it'll be probated, meaning that it'll be administered in compliance with the rules of the court. If you take advantage of a professional executor, there is going to be a fee involved. Trusts might be a great option for folks who want to limit their own liabilities while they continue to be alive, and it might be a fantastic solution for those who want to prevent probate altogether. Because a living trust doesn't need continuing court oversight, a trust is often utilized in conditions where an outright distribution of assets to the beneficiaries might not be desirable. Otherwise, assets have to be sold to meet the tax obligation. Most are revocable, which means you may add or remove assets from the trust when you want, or you're able to terminate the trust. The Hidden Gem of Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples Trusts is another elaborate topic. You may name anyone you wish to serve as executor of your will and estate. For the reason, it's important that you know how inheritance is going to be taxed as you make your estate planning decisions. Choosing Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples Is Simple Furthermore, sharing wealth among existing family m embers is a trying endeavor. Typically, your estate is regulated by the state in which you reside at the right time of your death. If in the event a relative is excluded as a beneficiary, it's also sensible to create a note about that, too. In any case, when you have a disabled relative, you can guarantee a solid protective solution for him or her that would deal with the individual in your absence. If you are in need of a thorough understanding of the various terminologies of a will and trust form, this form would be helpful as it includes neat definitions of each of the most significant terms utilized in such a form. There's though, an issue with these trusts made by Thomas when it has to do with certainty of objects, as we shall now discuss. The most common cause for people to create a trust is to continue to keep their property from going through probate when they die. 1 form of trust, called a testamentary trust, isn't only related to, but it's actually connected to you r will. For example, it's sufficient for testator to find the witnesses signing, even when testator did not appear at what they were doing at that moment. These trusts are usually void, as they don't satisfy the certainty of objects requirements. Revocable trusts can be amended by the individual making the trust, provided that they are alive and stay competent. Irrevocable trusts, on the flip side, cannot be changed or dissolved at any moment. What to Expect From Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples? A will usually functions as a contract and can be fully implemented only as long as the individual making them has the necessary capacity. However, the moment the little one acquires a mature age, he or she is able to acquire complete charge of the property. You don't wish to leave anything out and you would like to make certain everyone near you gets something from your estate. Making the document and signing it is just the initial step. Developing a will and trust form is a crit ical thing and should you will need guidance here, the templates mentioned previously would be really helpful for you. If you're looking for assistance with your essay then we provide a comprehensive writing service given by fully qualified academics in your area of study. You have to have a superior working understanding of the fundamentals. The Secret to Wills and Trusts Difficult Essay Samples Even though there are similarities between the two sorts of secret trust in addition, there are important differences. It is possible to change your will through using a codicil. It is possible to find suggestions on how to make people feel as if they're getting a reasonable cut of your property. However, now that you're a parent, you wish to ensure there is a good deal of money readily available to Rosy later on.

Snowball Sampling How to Do It and Pros and Cons

In sociology, snowball sampling refers to  a non-probability sampling technique (which includes purposive sampling)  in which a researcher begins with a small population of known individuals and expands the sample by asking those initial participants to identify others that should participate in the study. In other words, the sample starts small but snowballs into a larger sample through the course of the research. Snowball sampling is a popular technique among social scientists who wish to work with a population that is difficult to identify or locate. This often occurs when the population is somehow marginalized, like homeless or formerly incarcerated individuals or those who are involved in illegal activities. It is also common to use this sampling technique with people whose membership in a particular group is not widely known, such closeted gay people or bisexual or transgender individuals. How Snowball Sampling Is Used Given the nature of snowball sampling, it is not considered a representative sample for statistical purposes. However, it is a very good technique for conducting exploratory research and/or qualitative research with a specific and relatively small population that is hard to identify or locate. For instance, if you are studying the homeless, it may be difficult or impossible to find a list of all the homeless people in your city. However, if you identify one or two homeless individuals who are willing to participate in your study, they will almost certainly know other homeless individuals in their area and can help you locate them. Those individuals will know other individuals, and so on. The same strategy works for underground subcultures or any population where the individuals prefer to keep their identity hidden, such as undocumented immigrants or ex-convicts. Trust is an important aspect of any form of research that involves human participants, but it is especially important in a project that requires snowball sampling. For participants to agree to identify other members of their group or subculture, the researcher needs to first develop a rapport and a reputation for trustworthiness. This can take some time, so one must be patient when using the snowball sampling technique on reluctant groups of people.   Examples of Snowball Sampling If a researcher wishes to interview undocumented immigrants from Mexico, for example, he or she might interview a few undocumented individuals that he or she knows or can locate, gain their trust, then rely on those subjects to help locate more undocumented individuals. This process continues until the researcher has all the interviews he or she needs or until all contacts have been exhausted. A considerable amount of time is often required for a study that relies on snowball sampling. If you’ve read the book or have seen the movie The Help, you will recognize that the main character (Skeeter) uses snowball sampling as she seeks interview subjects for the book she is writing on the conditions for black women doing housework for white families in the 1960s.  In this case, Skeeter identifies  one domestic worker who is willing to speak with her about her experiences. That person, Aibileen, then recruits more domestic workers for Skeeter to interview. They then recruit a few more, and so on. In a scientific sense, the method may not have resulted in a representative sample of all African American domestic workers in the South at that time in history, but snowball sampling provided a useful method for qualitative research because of the difficulty finding and reaching out to the subjects.