Holland Tunnel Essay -- History Historical tunnels Engineering Essays

Holland Tunnel It has taken engineers thousands of years to perfect the art of digging tunnels. Today tunnels provide available space for cars and trains, water and sewage, even power and communication lines. However, before cars and trains, tunnels carried only water. The first to use tunnels on a major scale were the Romans. Roman engineers created the most extensive network of tunnels in the ancient world. The Romans built aqueducts to carry water from mountain springs to cities and villages; however, in many instances there were obstacles, such as rock formations, in between the spring and the city of interest. To solve these problems the Romans built tunnels by carving underground chambers and building elegant arch structures to carry fresh water into the city and wastewater out. As transportation technology progressed the demand for tunnels also evolved, and by the 17th century tunnels were being constructed for canals. Before the use of roads or railways to transport raw materials from the country to the city, waterways were the best way to haul freight over great distances. The major expansion in tunnel construction came with the introduction of the train and the automobile in the 19th and 20th century. The first major underwater mechanically ventilated tunnel was the Holland tunnel; it set the stage for all tunnels to follow by tackling the engineering obstacles surrounding underwater automobile tunnel traffic. With the rapid rise of the auto at the turn of the century Hudson River ferries struggled to meet demands and were carrying 30 million vehicles each year between New York and New Jersey. In 1906 a joint commission between New York and New Jersey was created to bridge the Hudson between Manhattan and Jer... ... normalize. The bridge opened in 1927 at the time the toll was 50 cents and the trip took eight minutes. The tunnel, when it opened, was the longest underwater tunnel in the world, with its north tube 8,558 feet long and its south tube 8,371 feet long. On its first day of operation 51,694 vehicles passed through it. The total cost of the tunnel was $48 million. Today, it would cost approximately $1.4 billion not including the purchase of the necessary land from Manhattan and Jersey City. Work Cited http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/holland/, Tuesday October 2, 2004 http://www.panynj.gov/tbt/htframe.HTM, Tuesday October 2, 2004 http://www.panynj.gov/tbt/hthist.HTM, Tuesday October 2, 2004 http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/holland/, Tuesday October 2, 2004 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/holland.html, Tuesday October 2, 2004

Homosexuals in the United States Military Essay

Homosexuals and U. S military service new laws and regulations which came into effect in 1993 reflected a compromise in policy. This settlement, referred to as â€Å"don’t ask, don’t tell,† states that the existence in the armed forces of persons who reveals a tendency or plan to take on homosexual acts would produce an intolerable hazard to the high standards of morale, high-quality order and discipline, and unit solidity which are the core of military capacity. Service members are not to be asked about nor allowed to talk about their homosexuality. This negotiation in spite of the matter has remained politically controversial. Previous to the 1993 compromise, the figure of individual’s releases for homosexuality was by and large declining. From the time, the number of discharges for homosexual conduct has generally amplified until recent times. In the wake of the new 1993 laws and regulations, constitutional challenges to the former and current military policies regarding homosexuals followed. In the case of Bowers vs. Hardwick, the U. S Supreme Court Ruling said that there is no right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy. In this case, the courts generally said that military men may be lawfully discharge for explicit homosexual conduct. Nevertheless, the legal picture was convoluted by the Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas which ruled against Bowers by declaring unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. Moreover, disturbed legal questions lingered as to whether a release based exclusively on a statement that a service member is homosexual disobeys constitutional limits. For the time being, efforts to allow individuals of the same sex to marry legally materialize implausible to affect the Department of Defense (DOD) policy close to term, because such individuals are barred from serving in the military, even though court challenges are possible. For the duration of the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton promised to remove the ban on homosexuals in the U.  S armed services. Once in office, he met with massive resistance from the U. S military and its congressional allies, and by summer of 1993, the original policy proposal was dead. Instead, Congress enacted the â€Å"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue† policy: gays and lesbians can now serve in the military, but they are obliged to keep their sexual preference private. Challengers of the open integration of gays and lesbians have discarded many of standard justifications for excluding homosexuals from military service. For example, the Pentagon and its cronies no longer disagree that gays and lesbians are security risks because of the threat of blackmail. As a case in point, even though both the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell and the famous military sociologist Charles Moskos contest the open integration of homosexuals in the military, they recognize that gays and lesbians are valuable soldiers. Discharge measures against homosexuals are packed with statements of many of these individuals’ excellent records, reliability, and commitment to their jobs. The matter is not whether gays and lesbians are good quality soldiers as individuals, but instead, the consequence of these individuals on the group. Opponents of removing all restrictions on homosexuals’ service argue that open incorporation of gays and lesbians would obstruct the development of primary group cohesion, which they say is significant to military efficiency. During the 1993 congressional trials on homosexuality in the military, both Senate and House testimony paid attention on the issue of unit cohesion. For instance, then Senator Sam Nuun, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 1993 asked each of the 6 Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss unit cohesion and its importance in developing combat capability. Army Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan answered him by saying that cohesion is developed by uniformity, by devotion to a common sense of values and behavior. The introduction into many small units of person whose open orientation and self-definition is completely opposed to the rest of the group will cause tension and disruption (Herek 1987). Senior US military officers concerned that the open integration of homosexuals would get in the way of the development of cohesion within small groups are not trusted or respected as expressed by Powell and Admiral David Jeremiah, and they added that in atmosphere of doubts, orders may not be carried out and everyday friendly gestures that encourage companionship- everyday childlike horseplay and rough-housing, a pat on the back or arm around the shoulder- become suspect, provoke fear or loathing, and annihilate group cohesion (Nowak, 1993)). Powell added that in order to win wars and battles the army needs to make cohesive groups of warriors who will bond so strongly that they are ready to go into battle and give their lives if indispensable and it is intolerable to allow anything to upset that feeling of cohesion inside the force. The disagreement about unit cohesion is based on two propositions: the first one is that primary group cohesion increases military effectiveness and second, open gay and lesbian personnel would disturb cohesion and thus military performance. According to Kier (1998) these propositions are wrong and she said that such statements do not reflect what social science research and experience have demonstrated about the relationship between cohesion and performance and the consequence of putting together previously excluded groups on primary group cohesion. Investigations of Homosexual Conduct Even if broad investigations of homosexual behavior are the exemption rather than the rule, there are noteworthy numbers of cases in which such investigations have been conducted. Based on the cases reviewed by Gosling (1993), he concluded that the immense majority of investigations that have happened have been correctly instigated, that is, an investigation has been made only after the commander had determined that there was convincing information that the member had engaged in homosexual conduct. Also, based on his findings, he was able to find out that a lot of the criticisms made about inappropriate initiation of investigations mirror a misinterpretation of the Department’s policy. In practice, plausible information has sometimes been provided to commanders in ways that service members might not have been anticipated to occur, or has been based on communications or performance that the partners, roommates, or unconnected third parties have sometimes come forward on their own to account information or proof of homosexual conduct to commanders next to the wishes of the service member in question (Nowak 1993). Photographs or in black and white communications that verifies homosexual conduct has sometimes been showed to civilians who then brought this proof to the attention of a commander, with no question having been conducted by the commander. Plausible information has also been incidentally discovered in the course of proper, entirely unrelated criminal or disciplinary investigations for a commander to initiate an investigation when information has been reported in any of these circumstances, granted that the information received is credible (Suraci, 1992). Indeed, because federal law requires that those who take on in homosexual conduct must be discharged from the military; commanders are compelled to investigate whenever they receive credible evidence of homosexual conduct. In addition, many academic institutions have ratified rules that defended homosexuals from prejudice on campus. Accordingly, colleges, universities, and even high schools have required barring military recruiters from their campuses or otherwise eliminating Reserve Officer Training Corps Programs on campus because of the DOD rule on homosexuals in the military. Simultaneously, legislation has been ratified that bars giving federal funds to campuses that obstruct entrance for military recruiters (Suraci 1992). On March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court upturned a federal appeals court verdict in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), and endorsed the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, which forbids certain federal funding to higher educational institutions that refute admittance by military recruiters to their students equal to that provided to other employers. Deviance Present among sociological conceptions of deviance is an approach that concerns itself not as much of with the characteristics of the person or persons said to have despoiled a social rule than with the character of the responses of other persons to these characteristics and events. This approach, occasionally called the â€Å"labeling† approach to deviance, observes the deviant as a social creation, the result of contact sequences between labelers and labeled (Becker, 1964). The questions that are lifted by this approach thus concern the behaviors that are tagged as deviant, what the methods are by which the labels are effectively applied or avoided, and what the results of such procedures are for both labelers and labeled. Nevertheless, regardless of the highlight laid on deviance as a creation of interaction, in practice most consideration has been paid to the labeler’s role in this process (Simon 1987). The method of developing deviance appears all collective response and no deviant stimulus. This is possibly an overreaction to an overreaction. For example, one theory is spelled out as to why some people break rules and some do not in terms of what is called as commitment and for other labeling theorists, characteristics of the deviant himself are not completely unrelated (Simon 1987). The point is well taken, but for example, in some of Goffman’s writings (1961) on mental patients his employment of the concept career contingencies materializes to treat the mental patient as a pawn, subject to the vagaries of all sorts of contextual demands. As a result of the above, labeling theory also has been seen as taking the side of the underdog- that the deviant is seen as a victim of the fairly subjective measures of control agencies. He is more sinned against than sinning, as it is a matter of chance, or racial or socioeconomic factors, rather than any behavior on his part, that chooses whether he is cast as deviant. Homosexuals in the Army in Other Countries Homosexuals in the military is not just an issue faced by the United States, there are many more countries out there that have the same situation as the US. The number of countries that permit gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in the armed forces is growing and it is increasingly becoming more important to know whether official decisions with regards to the inclusion of homosexual service members in the military lead t changes in organizational performance (West 1965). Even though most members of NATO plus some nations has already permitted gay and lesbian soldiers to serve, there has still a very few empirical analysis of whether the decision to remove gay ban influences the ability of armed forces to pursue their missions. This topic has been addressed by some theoretical studies but there has been no in-depth empirical analysis on the consequences of removing gay bans (Sudnow 1965). In Canada for example, there were a handful of careful studies immediately after Canada’s 1992 decision of abolishing restrictions on gay and lesbian soldiers (Belkin, 2001). Although that was the case, long term impact of the new policy could not be known in those early studies and even the best qualitative research is only based on a few sources (West 1965). American officer, Lt Gen Calvin Waller, affirmed in 1993 that since Canada had not been caught up in armed conflict since the ban was lifted, he explained that Canada’s justification for considering the proof that has mounted up for up to eight years since the ban was removed is that senior Canadian officials foresee that altering the policy might compromise military effectiveness (Millet 1999). For this reason, the Canadian incident gives an opportunity to assess the effect of the policy change in opposition to early forecasts by senior military leaders. After discussing the historical development of homosexual personnel policy in Canada, the authors examined whether Canada’s decision to eliminate restrictions on gay and lesbian soldiers influences military efficiency (Brumett, 1981). The paper’s findings, based on a review of primary and secondary sources, as well as interviews with 29 military personnel and experts from the academic, non-governmental, and policy communities, is that Canada’s decision to lift its gay ban had no effect on military performance, eagerness, unity, or morale (Millet 1999).

The Crucible- Compare and Contrast Reverend Hale and Reverend Parris

Taylor Orr Mrs. Blakley AP English III-3 16 November 2012 Reverend Hale vs Reverend Parris Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible is a compelling look at the witch hunts in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. In the play, Reverend Hale and Reverend Parris play major roles in the town and influence a shrewd of characters. They both have a number of job duties and responsibilities in common. As well as have a variation in personality, attitude, changes in the play and different roles at the end of the play.In the beginning of the play Reverend Parris is struggling with his daughter Betty – which has become â€Å"inert†. When asked if the cause of her behavior is due to witchery with Abigail in the forest, Parris refuses to have it as though it will stain his clean reputation, â€Å"But if you trafficked with spirits in the forest I must know now, for surely my enemies will, and they will ruin me with it. †(1038).Reverend Parris’s personality is too overcome with the thoughts of others, to be a leader of the town he acts more like a puppet , â€Å"I cannot go before the congregation when I know you have not opened with me. †(1038). Proctor says of Parris: â€Å". . . the last meeting I were at you spoke so long on deeds and mortgages I thought it were an auction† (841). Reverend Hale, on the other hand, is more of a strong leader. Hale is more compelled to find the truth and accept it, no matter positive or negative, â€Å"We shall need hard study if it comes to tracking down the Old Boy[Devil]. †

Character Analysis of Hugo’s Javert Essay

Hugo’s character Javert sees anyone who may have commit a crime as simple as the theft of a loaf of bread as a social malefactor, a blight on all of society, a prime evil who needs to be eliminated, removed from the general population, and a devil that can be neither reformed nor tamed. Javert is the true rationalist. Like Medieval philosophers, he believes that people will naturally resort to evil, and that these people can never be saved or reformed. Javert is the true rationalist because he believes the law is the highest authority, sees Jean Valjean as purely evil, and because he wholeheartedly believes in the infallibility of the law. Javert believes the law is the highest authority throughout Les Miserables. When his character is first described, Hugo states â€Å"It will be easily understood that Javert was the terror of all that class which the annual statistics of the Minister of Justice include under the heading: People without a fixed abode† (57). Javert believes that all of those that live in poverty are destined to be criminals because they are forced to live without being able to satisfy certain wants, and that people, who are naturally bad, will violate the law to satisfy themselves. Javert, quick to punish anyone of a low social status, is also quick to punish himself. When he falsely accuses Monsieur the Mayor of being a convict, he asks to be dismissed. To the Mayor, he says â€Å"I denounced you as a convict- you, a respectable man, a mayor, and a magistrate. This is a serious matter, very serious. I have committed an offense against authority† (69). He believes that he has violated the law and should therefore be punished for it, even though he has proved himself to be a worthy inspector and only is guilty of a minor infraction. He believes that any man, despite any previous or future actions, is inherently evil if he has ever done wrong, so Javert automatically condemns himself because he has commit a crime. Javert also believes that the word of the law always supercedes the word of a normal man. Champmathieu, who denied being Jean Valjean, was, in fact, not him, but Javert was positive that he was because the police had accused him of it. When Champmathieu proclaimed his innocence, Javert said of him â€Å"Champmathieu plays off astonished† because he believes that there is no shadow of a doubt  on whether this man is Jean Valjean. The police accused him of this, so they must be right. The police, because they are the envoy of the law, the supreme judge of character, must not be wrong, they are infallible in his eyes. Javert is a true rationalist because he believes that the law decides what kind of person you are, and the law is the highest authority, and that once judged by the law, a man cannot change. Javert is a rationalist because he believes that man is incapable of reform. Throughout the novel, Javert pursues Jean Valjean because he is a convict who is a danger to society. In M_ sur M_, Jean Valjean showed he was reformed by giving to his fellow man before taking for himself. In M_ sur M_, Jean Valjean made 600,000 francs, but not without giving 1,000,000 to the people of the town. Javert pursues him even though he proved himself to be good for the community. Javert is relentless in his pursuit because he firmly believes that a convict is incapable of reformation because he has shown himself to be a doer of evil, and someone who has done evil is inherently evil. When Jean Valjean saved Cosette from the Thenardiers, he showed that he was capable of love and that he was no longer bitter from years of incarceration. Nevertheless, Javert chases after him because he believes he is still a threat, because of his evil nature. Afterwards, Jean Valjean made it his life’s purpose to raise Cosette and give all his money to the poor, to better their circumstances. When Thenardier intended to kill Jean Valjean, Javert came not to stop a crime in process but to get Jean Valjean. Javert even pursued Jean Valjean after he had spared Javert’s life at the barricade. Even after the innumerable good, selfless deeds that Valjean performed Javert pursued him because he thought Valjean was still and would always be evil, because a man’s soul cannot change, is predestined to good or evil, love or violence. Javert shows he is a rationalist because he is blind to the fact that Valjean has reformed, because it is impossible for a man to do so. Javert shows he is a rationalist because he believes the law is infallible with all his soul. When saved by Valjean, Javert is confronted with a moral dilemma. He knew that he had to bring back Valjean or else he was in violation of his duty, and that if he were to let Valjean be free he would  be equally as evil. Hugo describes this predicament â€Å"Javert felt that something horrible was penetrating his soul, admiration for a convict† (336). Javert felt that he was becoming evil because he empathized with a purely evil man. As he empathized with Valjean, â€Å"all the axioms which had been the supports of his whole life crumbled away† (336). Javert was infected by a terrible disease, compassion. Compassion blinded his objectivity and was rendered an unworthy judge, now he was merely a wretch of a man, with a soul as black as Jean Valjean’s. Because in his mind, the mind of a true rationalist, there was only right and wrong, there were only two ways about this. He could either turn the evil man in or die for aiding and abetting the fugitive. Javert must do either the right, and prove himself true, or do wrong and prove himself evil. He must be either good or evil, because there is no such thing as a gray area, and no such thing as compassion, only seeds of evil in his soul. He was his own judge, jury, and executioner. He killed himself because he had failed before the eyes of the law, he failed to do right and was thus proven evil, and did not deserve to live. For this he was a rationalist. Javert represents the true rationalist in this novel because he believes the law is the highest judge of men. The law is the world’s guiding light and is always true. It is infallible, and the judge, a dispensary of the law, is the direct envoy of God. Jean Valjean is purely evil, and his attempts at repentance are only attempts to get out of trouble and to once again be assimilated into his surroundings, so he can once again do evil. Valjean is only a wolf, attempting to wear a sheep’s skin. His beliefs lead him to be so close minded that he is unable to deal with the fact that the law might be wrong. His mind is his own gallows, because he believes in the supreme power of the law. His rationalist beliefs are his noose, the ultimate cause of his death.

Is the American President sufficiently free from domestic pressures to Essay - 1

Is the American President sufficiently free from domestic pressures to be able to play the leadership role that American hegemony requires - Essay Example 499). For many years, European hegemony was experienced around the world with massive success. In fact, the hegemonic principles still apply today in the world as witnessed by the reverence given to royal families such as the queen and prince. For instance, the wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince Charles was air globally illustrating the existence of the modern hegemony in the society. Consequently, the imperial dominance exhibited by the royal family is a product of cultural imperialism. The cultural imperialism is a process whereby a state such as America dictates the internal politics and the societal character of the subordinates states via the sphere of influence. The growth of hegemony in the post-Cold War world is similar to the 19th and 20th century, but the leading country in hegemony in the 21st century is the U.S. in fact, most Neo-Marxist philosophers describe America as the hegemonic hyper power (Clark, 2011, p. 36). The definition is based on the unilateral military actions worldwide including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, senior American political scientists argue that the current American set-up does not present a truly hegemonic state because it does not finance or use the military resources to impose a formal or proper global hegemony (Clark, 2009, p. 156). However, the global leadership is a result of American leadership and can be described as hegemonic governance. In spite of the nonexistence of the clear link between hegemony and the American government in the global environment, it is possible that the American hegemony is evident in the global politics. In political science, the denotation of hegemony extended to describe predominance of a country upon others. The action can be through extension and the development of Great Power Politics, which establishes the indirect imperial rule (Hung, 2013, p. 1343).

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen - Movie Review Example Worse still Afghanistan is bombed, a factor that leads to the British PM, Maxwell Patricia call for the need to strengthen the relationship between the British and Muslim worlds4. In the business world, it is possible that cultures differ. Each of the cultural worlds tends to be suspicious of the other party as they do not share the same experiences and beliefs. As seen in the film, Harriet is frustrated by Jones, the fisheries expert who has numerous misconceptions about Yemen’s ability to sustain the business5. In fact, Jones is wary that he might tarnish his business name in the event that he invests in the Yemen community and is completely against the project, to an extent that he walks out of the meeting6. In this case, it is warranted to argue that the profits that would be accrued from investing in Yemen can easily be lost due to the cultural variations between the two parties. Jones is simply uninterested by any chance getting involved with the Yemenis but Harriet insi sts7. Later in the film, culture is seen as yet another barrier to business success. Jones finally agrees to the business plan and a meeting with the Sheikh is set8. Upon arrival, at the Scottish Highlands, Jones reveals that he has no faith, an aspect that demoralizes Sheikh who believes that the fishing industry requires a commitment to one’s faith9. This sparks a conflict between both parties who have a conflict of interests that emanate from their cultural faith. However, the project goes on well despite the personal problems in the lives of Jones and Harriet but cultural issues continue to dwindle the success of the business10. This time, Sheikh is accused of staining the Islamic world by doing business with the West11. It gets to a point that the Sheikh is to be assassinated by some radicals, and faces opposition from the locals who do not want the pods to be operational. Sheikh attempts to explain that he opened the pod for the good of the people, but the locals are no t impressed with that fact at all12. This can arguably be indicated to emanate from the variations in beliefs from the two worlds. Arguably, culture has played a major role in the assessing the various outcomes of the project. In the event that both parties would not have jeopardized their beliefs in terms of culture, it is obvious that the business would not have succeeded one mile. This is for the reason that each of the parties would be quick to judge the other and use their misconceptions in the business. It is the respect of the cultural variations that led to the success of the project in the long run, as the interests of the business were put first; thus, picking the best from each group. From the film, it is clear that Sheikh is quick to explain the spirituality and the religion that is linked to fishing, but Jones seems not care about that, but the project success13.

Critical Literacy Narrative Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Critical Literacy Narrative - Essay Example As a Chinese person, learning English was not easy for me. First, I need to mention here that while one can find many people knowing English in the non-English countries, China is one such country where not many people know English. Even with the status of an international language, Chinese people are generally reluctant to learn English language and prefer to communicate with one another in the Chinese language both within China and outside. However, one cannot deny the importance of learning English language in the present age. Today, when globalization has reached its peak, learning English has become more of a condition than a choice. So I had to learn English anyway. I started learning English in the school. We started over with learning letters, then vovals, words, pronunciations, poems, lines, passages, and short stories. As I progressed through various classes in school, learning English became more and more thorough and detailed. In high school, I learned writing letters and essays. The more I wrote, the better I got at speaking and writing English. However, listening English and understanding native English people speak English was not easy for me because I had heard English being spoken in the Chinese accent in China. But I had to move over to the US for higher education. For this, developing competence in listening and understanding English in addition to other competencies was very important. I started developing competence in listening and understanding English in the British and American accent by watching Hollywood movies. I believe that Hollywood movies are a very good and informative source for people who want to learn English. Not only are these movies in native English accents, but the language actors use is the one we use in everyday life. So I get to learn English the way it is spoken by the native people in everyday life. As I learned English more and more, I learned that there is not one, but many accents of native English; there is an A merican accent, a British accent, and an Australian accent to mention a few. The first movie that sparked a motivation in me to learn English was Titanic. I totally loved that movie, but at the time when it was released, I couldn’t understand and enjoy it fully because of my limited knowledge of English. However, I was very motivated by the movie and wanted to learn English more in order to be able to enjoy such wonderful movies fully. I saw more English movies and over the passage of time, my competence in English language improved. The biggest challenge I experienced after moving to the US was understanding English in the native American accent. People found it hard to understand me and I found it hard to understand them. This complicated the matters for me manifolds as I not only faced the challenge of adjusting in the US, but also of understanding others and making myself understood. In order to live happily in a native English country, learning English is a must. Even pe ople who can speak English but not perfectly experience so many issues in the native English countries, what to talk of them who do not know English at all. â€Å"the fact that people in department stores, at banks, and at restaurants did not take her seriously, did not give her good service, pretended not to understand her, or even acted as if they did not hear her† (Tan 506) are some of the difficulties commonly experienced