Psychotherapies Thesis Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 9000 words

Psychotherapies - Thesis Example This is based on the fact that interactions in nature can help a person become rooted in their own ancestral, biological, innate self. A closer relationship with the natural world is like "coming home," and such interaction deconstructs the industrial and cultural self and brings the individual back to a closer understanding of essentials. People's desire for nature is linked not only to their direct exploitation of the environment, but also to the influence of the natural world on our emotions and spiritual predisposition. Edward Wilson (1984) suggested that human identity and progress depend on the relationship with nature. The hypothesis that he asserted is that the human propensity to affiliate with non -human living organisms is genetically based. Wilson's work in the field of biophilia provides a framework by which a new discipline can be mapped towards a more thorough understanding of the human relationship with nature. The background of ecotherapy is linked to theorists that include Carl Jung and reflect the variety of different types of ecotherapy and perceptions about their value. While there has been a considerable amount of research into ecotherapy and its impacts, the value of specific methods for ecotherapy has been at the center of debates in the therapeutic community. For example, supporters of human-pet therapies maintain that this method is valuable in bringing an individual into closer understanding of the natural world and the interrelation between man and animal. Critics, though, argue that humans sometimes seek out pets and humanize them, creating compliant little "people" instead of creating a relationship with nature (June McNicholas, et al. 2005; James Serpell, 2000). As a result, assessments of the existing methods for ecotherapy should be related through a view of the current literature, and should reflect both the supporters and critics of the different ecotherapy options. Severe environmental issues such as deforestation, tacitly suggest that we are losing our relationship with nature. In addition, oppressive economic conditions predispose people to be more susceptible to all sorts of distresses. Therefore, it will be argued in this paper that people must strengthen their relationship with nature and that this connection should be fully integrated as a therapeutic practice. The fundamental concept of ecotherapy and its therapeutic power states that in order for us to heal ourselves and reconnect to our inner voice, we have to reconnect to nature (Howard Clinebell, 1996).Establish the thesis statement. It is the primary thesis of this paper that people have the potential to overcome their personal distress. What is more, they can dissolve the defensive separation between spirit, mind, and body through the mutual connection between their inner values and the environment. Therefore, physical healing, psychological problem solving, and spiritual awareness can unite under one experience. Sophia Adamson and Ralph Metzner (1988) suggested that the Western societies usually deal with their psychological problems in a rational and socially beneficial way and stated that the traditional procedure follows a medical model that includes drug treatments administered on a regular schedule. The bond between doctor and patient is isolated and restricted.

Sauce - Barbecue Essay Example for Free

Sauce Barbecue Essay Choose the most appropriate answer for each question.Shade your choice on the Objective Answer Sheet. 1. Egg whites will whip up into a better foam if a) they are at room temperature b) they are well chilled c) they have small amount of baking soda added to them d) they have small amount of oil added to them 2. Which of the following combination is incorrect ? a) Cinnamon-bank b) Cumin-seed c) Marjoram-root d) Clove-bud 3. Potato is a a) starch b) vegetables c) both a and b d) neither a nor b 4. Which of the following terms is associated with broiling? a) low heat b) tender food items c) slow d) all of the above 5. Deglazing takes place after a) broiling b) grilling c) deep-frying d) sautà ©ing 6. Which of the following might produce a cloudy stock? a) Using the fresh bone b) Covering the pot c) Skimming frequently d) Simmering gently 7. ____________are made from forcemeats of poultry or game wrapped in the skin of the bird and poached in an appropriate stock. a) Quenelles b) Pate c) Terrine d) Gelatine 8. When making mayonnaise,it is essential to ____________. a) Beat the egg yolks well in a bowl b) Have all the ingredients as cold as possible c) Use highly flavoured ingredients d) Add the boil all at once 9. The_________ of a slice of meat determines its cooking time. a) thickness b) grade c) weight d) age 10. Which of the following thick soups are most likely to contain seafood? a) cream soup b) purees c) bisque d) potages 11. Vegetables are least likely to be__________ . a) poached b) braised c) boiled d) deep fried 12. _________ can protect a roast from drying while cooking. a) cooking it fat side up b) barding c) larding d) all of the above 13. To make a white roux with 250gm of butter,you will need a) 500 ml cornstarch b) 125 gm flour c) 250 ml flour d) 250 gm flour e) 14. Which of the following is not a function of fats in baked goods? a) to give firmness to the structure b) to add moistness c) to give crust color d) to increase product qualities 15. Artichokes and asparagus are considered as a) cabbage family b) shoots c) leafy vegetables d) onion family 16. A liaison is added to a sauce __________. a) at any time during cooking b) at the beginning of cooking c) just before the sauce is reduced d) at the end of cooking 17. Which of the following is least likely to be found in a sachet? a) bay leaf b) garlic c) peppercorn d) dried thyme 18. A prawn is a ___________. a) large shrimp b) green shrimp c) crustacean d) both a and c 19. Which of the following would generally not to be served with fish a) caper sauce b) lemon butter sauce c) demi glace d) tartare sauce 20. Which is the best answer that describes the effects of heat to food composition i. Proteins coagulate ii. Sugar caramelize iii. Water evaporates iv. Fat solidify v. Starches gelatinized a) i only b) i and ii only c) i,ii,iii and v d) all the above PART B TRUE AND FALSE Shade the letter ‘T’ if the statement is True and ‘F’ if the statement is False on the True/False Answer Sheet. 1. Bones that are exposed to air during cooking will turn dark and this will discolour the stock. 2. Broth and bouillon refer to simple,clear soups without solid ingredients. 3. Low temperature produces the best cooked eggs. 4. Yeast is a non living microscopic plant. 5. A heavy whipping cream has a fat content between 36%-40%. 6. In standard breading procedure moist items should be held longer before to extract moisture. 7. Red snapper is a type of fresh water fish. 8. Hard cheeses,such as parmesan can be grated easily. 9. A squab is a young pigeon with light and tender meat. 10. Marbling separates muscle fibers making them easier to chew. 11. The market form of whole fish usually has had the viscera removed. 12. All kind of scraps can be used in stocks at all time with no exception. 13. Rigor mortises is the stiffness in an animals muscles,due to chemical changes in the flesh. 14. The compound that colors red vegetables red is carotenoids. 15. The neck and back of a chicken is the best bones for stock making. 16. A classical Tomato Sauce is made with roux. 17. In order to obtain the maximum volume from whipped eggs white,all traces of fat must be eliminated. 18. The term dressing also refers to â€Å"food stuff† that is baked separately. 19. The chef cold larder supervises the cold meat department and breading of meats,fish and seafood. 20. Whole spices take shorter time to release its flavour. PART D SHORT ESSAY Answer ALL questions. QUESTION 1 Explain why sauces that are finished with butter must be served immediately. The sauce should then be served immediately if it is allowed to stand,the butter may separate. QUESTION 2 Name and explain the three(3) ingredients that made up a sauce. -A liquid ,which is the body of the sauce. -A thickening agent -An additional seasoning and flavouring ingredients. QUESTION 3 Names the five(5) important parts of meat tenderloin and briefly describe the characteristics of the meat. 1-chateaubriand 2-fillets 3-tornedos 4-fillet migaou 5-goulash QUESTION 4 Give the definitions of herbs and spices.Name four(4) spices and four(4) herbs that are commonly used in cookery. Herbs are the leaves of certain plants used in flavouring.The examples of herbs are thymes,bay leaves,rosemary and basil. Spices are any part of plant,other than that,the leaves used in flavouring.The examples of spices are celery seeds,cumin seeds,caraway seeds and cloves. QUESTION 5 List the four(4) basic ingredients of clear meat. i. Lean ground meat ii. Egg white iii. Mirepoix iv. Acid ingredients QUESTION 6 What is different between marbling and barding? Marbling is fat deposited within muscle tissue while barding is tying slices of fat over the surface of meat to protect them while roasting.

The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Politics Essay

The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Politics Essay Introduction The assertion that climate change is anthropogenic and poses a serious threat to humanity is considered a valid argument by many schools of thought. This argument presents a platform for continual dialogue and negotiations between nations, supported with actions towards mitigating climate change and its threats. Resulting from several negotiations, which are not without controversy, are agreements, plans and policies such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Action Plan, the Rio Declaration and the Bali Road Map etc. all fashioned to ensure collective and wide participation amongst states in addressing climate change. Also, as part of global efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations (UN), is assigned the task of generating guidelines and reports and also assessing the effects of climate change and the adequacy of response measures (Svensson, 2008). In addition, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is adopted by many states in order to prevent this negative change by mainly minimising the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission into the atmosphere (Svensson, 2008; Ringius et al., 2002). However, concerns have been raised about the efficacy and feasibility of some of these agreements, plans and frameworks as measures for controlling and managing climate change (Monbiot, 2006; Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002; Hardy, 2003). These concerns call for unbiased reviews of climate change mitigation measures and the principles behind them within different framings of the problem. In this paper, I discuss a key principle behind climate change mitigation measures. I weigh the value of equity in climate change mitigation and identify the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). In conclusion, I make a case for introducing viable principles as measures for tackling climate change. EQUITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change can be framed as a single or combination of issues such as ethical, political, historical, scientific, security and health issues etc (Randall, 2010). However, one can argue that although the universal perception of the magnitude of climate change is hinged mainly on scientific claims and evidence, this perception is broadened within the other issues or framings mentioned. Principles and mechanisms to control climate change are proposed, developed and implemented at local and international scales around these framings (Randall, 2010). Nonetheless, one consequential factor underlying these scales and framings is inequity (Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002). Incidentally, equity is arguably the starting point of the discourse on climate change mitigation (Barkham, 1995). It forms the crux and as well constitutes the bane of many debates and negotiations on climate change (Ashton and Wang, 2003). Yet, Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe (2002) contend that equity is not adequ ately addressed in key agreements and documents relating climate change. Contrary to this claim, Ashton and Wang (2003) argue that equity permeates UN negotiations and agreements on climate change. Equitable participation is to a large extent dependent on the understanding of the challenges posed by climate change (Skea and Green, 1997). On these premises, I argue that the explicit understanding of equity in the context of climate change at a local or international scale sets the stage for fairness in dealing with climate change problems. Notwithstanding, it is important to mention that it is difficult to reach a consensus on equity since it is reliant on different philosophical beliefs and notions (Ikeme, 2003). While it can be argued that climate change is a common problem, it also fair to recognise that responsibilities and impacts vary (Harris, 1999; Ashton and Wang, 2003). Consequently, differences and disagreements emerge. The phrase, unfair advantage in climate change negotiations, questions the practicability of equity and the comprehension of the common and differential nature of this global challenge. This undermines efforts to obtain viable solutions (Skea and Green, 1997). The mere recognition of inequity or equity may be considered a reasonable act of justice and key to solving the climate change problem. Thus, I put forward that the acceptance of equity as an integral component of negotiations opens up rather chaotic but pertinent twists in the climate change debate which on one hand can promote the efforts towards mitigating climate change and on the other hand serve as a conundrum against solutions. To explore these arguments and make a case for viable climate change solutions, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) as a tool for negotiating climate change solutions is defined and dissected at an international scale. This principle is equity-based and has been applied in key climate change negotiations (Ikeme, 2003; Okereke, 2008; Matsui, 2004; Ashton J. and Wang X., 2005). Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration, 1992 Common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) The application of this principle in the climate change saga has its origin from the UNFCCC Rio Earth summit of 1992 (Harris, 1999; Ashton and Wang, 2003; Matsui, 2004). It is regarded as the key principle in addressing the problem of GHG emissions in the Kyoto protocol (Matsui, 2004; Harris, 1999). The principle of CBDR is established on the grounds of equity and fairness and demands more responsibility from developed countries in a global participation towards seeking climate change solutions (Harris, 1999; Ashton and Wang, 2003; Matsui, 2004). The principle states that: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earths ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, www.unep.org) This principle has come under close scrutiny and criticism in the climate change mitigation debate. Both the developing and developed states remain sceptical about this principle (French, 2000; Okereke, 2008). Why the principle of CBDR? Given the complexity of issues and arguments arising from climate change debates, one can only wonder how decisions can be regarded as fair and equitable (Ashton and Wang, 2003; Carzola and Toman, 2000). And if they are regarded as such how can their efficiency be measured? Outlining the reasons behind the application of this principle in this discourse sets the stage for a thorough analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. These reasons are: To distinguish between the contributions of the developed and developing states in the emission of GHG and subsequently determine their contributions in remedying the problem (Weisslitz, 2002; Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002). To ensure financial aid and clean technology transfer to the developing states as a measure of mitigating climate change (Ashton and Wang, 2003; Shah, 2009). To provide a philosophical and legal support for achieving the objectives of key international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol etc. [note: this principle is not a legal obligation] (McManus, 2009; Rajamani, 2000). Identification and analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Principle of CBDR as a solution to climate change In relating CBDR to answering the following questions: who should accept responsibility for climate change? and on what basis should responsibilities be assigned, one can explore the pros and cons of this principle within different framings. The ambiguous nature of this principle in global climate change negotiations warrants answering these questions at an international scale. Livermann (2008) reinforces this assertion by pointing out that the challenge of the blame game in assigning responsibilities to states is controlled under negotiations driven by the principle of CBDR. Nevertheless, she concedes that there controversies in applying this principle. Strengths First, from a historical framing, it is difficult to reconcile the contribution of different polluters on an international scale over a long period of time (Caney, 2005). Attributing emissions directly to a country (from which the emission emanate) is impractical largely because GHG get completely mixed up in the atmosphere, which fundamentally has no boundary (Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002). On this basis, the principle identifies a common responsibility (Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002) for all states. This common responsibility is intrinsic in climate change negotiations and forms the fulcrum of viable agreements. During the era of massive global industrialisation, a lot GHG were released into the atmosphere (Stern, 2006; Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002; Hardy, 2003). But the impact of distribution of these GHG is irrespective of who is responsible (Ikeme, 2003). The need for historical accountability became obvious during climate change negotiations (Neumayer, 2000). In this regard, the CBDR recognises that there are historical differences in emissions between the developing and the developed states and between developed states (Hepburn and Ahmad, 2005). In the words of Ikeme (2003, pp 7), bygones are not bygones. On this note one can argue that this principle is progressive in an intergenerational context. It considers how the emissions of the past can affect the future. It also establishes a moral and ethical basis for environmental justice which cannot be legally guaranteed (Kamminga, 2008; Ikeme, 2003). There are strong indications that climate change has an impact on the worlds economy (Stern, 2006). Similarly, the worlds economy has a hand in climate change. The economic boom which accompanied the industrialisation of the developed states arguably played a major role in aggravating climate change, leaving developing states and future generations at more peril to its effects (Barker, 2008; Stern 2006). This peril is more obvious due to the economic gap between these states. The CDBR is applied to this effect to bridge the economic gap between states, even though its application remains contentious (Najam et al., 2003; Ramajani, 2000). In the Kyoto protocol, economic based mechanisms adopted to mitigate climate change show the global proposition for shared responsibility (Halvorssen, 2007; Vashist, 2009). The CBDR is clearly one principle behind economic agreements of shared responsibility in the Kyoto protocol (Harris, 1999; Vashist, 2009). Thus CBDR is formulated to meet economic needs of states while tackling climate change. The CBDR also saves developing states the cost of engaging in stringent carbon cut regulations, thereby indirectly helping to build their economies in order to close the gap with the developed states. Through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto protocol, this principle arguably enhances the investment in clean technology globally, promoting ecological modernisation in the process. More so, CBDR facilitates the need for developed states to provide technological and financial assistance to the developing states for combating climate change (Scarpace, unknown). Developed states get credits under the CDM for avoiding emissions. Though, McManus (2009) argues that through the CDM, developing states meet sustainable development targets, I remain sceptical about this claim since the developing states remain at the core of disagreements in negotiations. I argue my case in the next section. Matsui (2004) and Harris (1999) suggest that the CBDR encourages the developing states to participate in climate change negotiations by pressurizing the developed states to bear the greater responsibility in the interim. However, there is need to back up this encouragement with actions. It seems encouragement is not enough judging from the GHG emission levels of countries like Brazil, China and India. While these countries are not committed to reducing their emissions now, I suggest this principle serves as legacy to ensure their future compliance and commitment in climate change mitigation initiatives, especially as they are at the forefront of pressing the developed states to comply with the Kyoto agreements. When aligned with neoliberal economic ideas and structures, the CBDR is usually successful (Okereke, 2008, pp 26). I argue that these ideas and structures are entwined in some of the mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol which encourage private participation in climate change mitigation such as the CDM. The introduction of equity based norms such as CBDR in approaching global environmental issues such as climate change shows the consideration of justice and equity in facing the challenge (Okereke, 2008). Weaknesses On the contrary, the interpretation of the principle of CBDR sparks controversy in the allocation of historical responsibility to states. Liverman (2000) argues that this favours the developed states. She also points out that while developing states have low emissions with high vulnerability; developed states have high emissions with low vulnerability. Hence, the basic interpretation of this principle is devoid of issues on vulnerability which is a big problem. Thus, one can infer that this principle is fundamentally constructivist and to a large extent uncaring about the issue of vulnerability of some states to climate change. By virtue of this assertion, there is no firm commitment by developed states to aid countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives which are more vulnerable to the rise in sea levels. The case of vulnerability is can be appreciated more from a health perspective. The emergence of many diseases is now attributed to the increasing global temperatures (Patz et al. , 2007) and now climate change is seen as a threat to global human health (Cambell-Lendrum et al., 2007). It is also considered the largest health inequity of our time (Patz et at., 2007 pp.397). There is a notable asymmetry in vulnerability to diseases between the developed and developing states in favour of the developed states (Hardy, 2003, Patz et al., 2007, Cambell-Lendrum et al., 2007). The CBDR alignment with the aftermath of GHG emissions is myopic. This principle is not modelled to advance sustainable development in the developing states. (Scarpace, Unknown). The exportation of unclean technology by developed states to developing states for financial benefits is contrary to the objective of sustainable development. Many heavy polluting multinational industries now establish their plants in developing states where there are no stringent emission regulations. By virtue of the CBDR, the weight of responsibility on developing countries to voluntarily cut GHG emissions is insignificant (Scarpace, unknown). Though, some schools of thought will argue that setting targets for developing states will limit their growth and possibly widen the economic gap which the principle aims to narrow (Pinguelli-Rosa and Munasinghe, 2002), I maintain that there should be some sort of commitment from developed nations based on this principle or a reviewed principle because climate change still remains a common problem. A scenario where some states with historically insignificant emissions but are now are big emitters with strong economic capabilities, is not adequately depicted in the CBDR. Due to their economic capacities some of these developing states can fully participate in reduction of GHG. Under the guise of the principle, these states like China do so little to solve the problem (Scarpace, Unknown). The ambiguity of this principle questions the level at which the principle should be adopted. Caney (2005) suggests that this principle may fit international interests but neglects lower level interest such as local national interests and individual interests. Finally, Matsui (2004) argues the CBDR has a propensity for what he calls double standard or what Okereke (2008) refers to as responsibility deficit where the willingness to act responsibly is superseded by cost-benefits. This contention is made worse on the grounds that the CBDR principle is not legally binding, irrespective of the fact that the Kyoto protocol was signed into law (Matsui, 2004; French, 2000). Also, the pressing economic needs of states may result in limited devotion of resources necessary for global solutions to climate change (French, 2000). There is also a sense of caution and competition amongst the developed countries such that they want to avoid any condition that may result in unfair economic advantage (Green and Skea, 1997, pp 3). More so, Okereke (2008) asserts that the nature of the CBDR could result in hegemony; where developed nations in a bid to maintain their economic and world dominance, project an air of interest, claiming leadership in moral and int ellectual discourses in climate change. Discussion Only agreements considered by all parties as equitable are likely to promote action and facilitate climate change mitigation (Ashton J. and Wang X., 2003). Such agreements must be built on the tenets of equity and driven by a singular objective stop climate change if we can. Though the implementation of CBDR is wrought with several controversies, parties to climate change debates and negotiations must recognise that it is not an utopian principle. Concessions need to be made on ethical grounds if climate change is really considered a big threat to humanity. The CBDR is one important principle for tackling climate change equitably. Sceptics and critics have to realise that agreeing on a new principle to replace or back-up CBDR may take several years, yet more claims of inequity may arise. The Polluter pay principle has a more direct approach to addressing emission issues. It could easily be drafted into law. However, it may undermine the economic gap between states (Caney, 2005). It focuses mainly finance and economics to the detriment of physical and environmental outcomes of climate change. Without a strong historical basis, this polluter pay principle cannot be viable at any level in tackling climate change. However, there are arguments by Shue and Neumayer in Caney (2005) canvassing for individualist approach for accounting for historical deficits in adopting this principle. In my opinion, to make the CBDR more practicable and fit to meet the especially the challenge vulnerability in climate change, a consequentialist dynamic approach is needed. This approach shall integrate measures to assess the risk of climate change in different regions of the world and it shall be carried out continuously at different times. Global efforts will subsequently concentrate of the most vulnerable areas. This approach will not require changing the wordings of principle 7. However, it will need a firm legal backing to ensure its implementation. Conclusion The post Kyoto negotiations will take off in 2012 and Kamminga (2007) points out that improving the Kyoto protocol is a major concern. The CBDR still remains the most potent principle to bring all states to the round table for fair negotiations. Sacrifices must be made to mitigate climate change and the big polluters, especially the US, need to establish their sovereignty in the new negotiations. Doubting the evidence of climate change is one thing, but refusal to act reasonably negates the essence of the precautionary principle. Environmental and Political egalitarianism need reflect in the outcome of the 2012 negotiations. States need to ask, What is morally right to do in this situation? If the talk about globalization is anything real, then we must all learn to be our brothers keepers. The big states seem to prioritise economic gains in climate change mitigation while the small states are bent on playing the blame game. However, these states need to realise that the CBDR is still a potent tool with which to achieve collective viable climate change solutions.

Dissociative Identity Disorder Essays -- Biology Essays Research Paper

Dissociative Identity Disorder, commonly known as Multiple Personality Disorder, is estimated to afflict at least a tenth of the American population. Patients with this disorder suffer from constant memory loss due to the presence of two or more other personalities that "take over" the patient's consciousness at random times of the day. This switching of personalities may last for a couple minutes, a couple hours, to up to several weeks at a time (1). In the past 30 years, the prevalence of Dissociative Identity Disorder has sky rocketed. The term dissociation refers to the disruption of one or more agents that constitutes "consciousness", such the formation of memories, making sense of them and maintaining a sense of identity (1). Dissociation results from forces beyond the patient's control. Proponents of Dissociative Identity Disorder believe memory loss occurs because the patient's consciousness is taken over by alter personalities believed to be formed during childhood (2). Personalities are usually found to be extremely different from the personality of the patient. The patient is usually shy, introverted and insecure, whereas some of her personalities may be flirtatious, outgoing, confident; and yet others may have issues surrounding anger management. Personalities may be older than the age of the patient, younger, or may have lived over a hundred years ago (1). Patients who suffer from DID are usually women who have had a history of sexual or extreme physical abuse, or who have experienced repeated trauma beyond her control (3). Because the child cannot physically escape the pain, her only option is to escape mentally: by dissociating. Dissociation is said to defend against pain by allowing the maltreatment to be ex... ...ts who come into therapy may have problems dealing with their emotions and self validation, and at the end of therapy, with the help and validation of therapists, discover multiple alter personalities. Does Dissociative Identity Disorder exist? Maybe. Yet, one who is unable to integrate various emotions and memories should have less than one personality, not multiple. References 1)Dissociative Identity Disorder: The Relevance of Behavior Analysis by Brady J. Phelps http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/ 2)Multiplying the Multiplicity in the British Journal of Psychology http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/ 3)The Treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder With Neurotherapy and Group Self Exploration http://www.isnr.org/index.html 4)An Analytical Review of Dissociative Identity Disorder http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web1/www.ycp.edu

Cats vs. Dogs as Pets

The most popular pets in today’s society are cats and dogs. There has always been a debate for both sides. It’s a matter of opinion to which animal is superior. This essay is going to compare and contrast the two animals. One of the most obvious similarities is that cats belong to the feline family. Cats are independent and require less attention from their owners. Dogs belong to the canine family. Dogs are pack animals; this means they require more attention by their owners so they don’t become depressed and lonely.Looking at both animals, they both have different needs, habits and attitudes. Cats need less grooming because they clean themselves. Cats use a litter box and don’t have to be trained like dogs to use the bathroom outside. Cat litter can be expensive also. Dogs need to have baths, be brushed and taken care of when they use the bathroom. The cost for food is more expensive for dogs. The habits of both animals are very different and should be co nsidered by the owner. Dogs, if allowed, will share a meal with their owner. They can also share furniture such as bed, recliner, and couches.They like to be petted and go for walks. Dogs bark and can bother neighbors. Dogs nail care has to be done by a veterinarian which can cost you. Cats do to but don’t have to be walked. Cats can be trained though to walk on a leash. Cat’s meow, purr, growl, and hiss. Cats may scratch furniture and are very hard to train them not to do so. Cats can be declawed to deter the tearing up of furniture. The other difference between cats and dogs is that cats are nocturnal and dogs are daytime animals. The attitudes between the animals can be very different.Dogs can be loving, loyal, protective and do tricks if trained. Some dogs are really good with kids and some are not so you might want to look into which breed of dogs are good with children. Cats on the other hand can be unpredictable and scratch children. They can be sweet in nature and snuggle up with you. Cats enjoy playing with simple toys such as; paper balls, toilet roll cardboard, mouse toys and yarn. Cats don’t have to be entertained by their owners because they are independent animals. Sometimes cats can bring you surprises such as birds, mice, moles. They even chase and kill flies.Some cats may be shy and skittish around other people so they like to hide in different places throughout the house. There are many reasons we choose to have a pet. One reason may be to relieve stress. Some pet lovers might choose to get a dog to protect their house. Some prefer to own a cat instead of a dog and vice versa. Older people prefer cats for the companionship. Younger couples usually choose a puppy for their children to play with. It is also good to research all the options you have that will suit you and your family. Whether you choose a cat or dog you should always consider they both have different needs, habits and attitudes.

Implications of Tuition-Free College Education Essay

In considering the matter of tuition-free college education for all qualified citizens, one must ask what impact there will be on society in general, national economics and the educational system over all. In removing all economical barriers to education on the four-year level, an increased number of qualified employees will exist and the level of Master’s and Doctoral degrees would heighten. This will serve humanity better in allowing a higher level of professionalism and informed citizenry for the countries in question. In a study performed by De-Fraja in 2002, the results were divided between the bright and the unintelligent. In allowing a tax-supported educational system, the study shows that more capable individuals who were not afforded an educational opportunity would be allowed to serve better the needs of the government and the populace in general. It also insinuates that the unfortunate challenged people would become more efficient if they opted for education, whereas otherwise they may become a burden on the system in general. In affording these opportunities, a higher-trained workforce becomes available, thereby giving more opportunity for tax-supported education from the increase in tax payments per capita. De-Fraja further supposes that the option of private education will widen the gap between the privileged and the non- but at least society is improved overall (De-Fraja 2002). Feldman and Steenbergen implicate the need to provide these opportunities in terms of humanitarianism. In allowing underprivileged individuals the ability to improve themselves, we are thereby improving our own society. The study argues that, â€Å"humanitarianism is an important element of the American sociopolitical ethos, although it has received little attention in the public opinion literature,† (Feldman & Steenbergen, 2001). With the social welfare system carrying a negative reputation, they suggest that the educational system would be impacted by this, but this is the area to address rather than the positives that would come from the tuition-free programs. Dynarski looks at the issue from an economics point of view. In contending that the financial burden of providing such a system would be heavy, the resulting influx of employee base would increase the operating capital of the project, thus off-setting the cost in the end. She also poses that even a $1,000 grant for students will increase the participation levels by 4-6%. In offering free college in the public education sector, the private organization can still offer varying levels of programs, but the populace overall will contribute in a positive manner. Although she states that the obvious impact would be in satisfactory standards for these programs, with the proper system in place, the concern should be effectively addressed, thus making the decision economically viable (Dynarski, 2002). Finally, as a practical implication, we look at the evidence offered by Foondun. In looking at the effect of free-tuition in developed and developing countries, Foondun found that while developing nations do not always have the distinct plan to offer educational programs, as countries grow – the sponsorship of private schools increase. With this increase, one finds betterment in the general populace and the economic situation overall. With an increase in educated individuals, the shift begins to slide towards betterment of the country and its people, humanitarian efforts increasing on a larger scale. With this would follow the tuition-free education systems, thereby improving the overall condition of the country (Foondun 2002). In conclusion, by looking at the economic, humanitarian, and practical implications of free-tuition offered to all qualified individuals, we can see that the impact will be positive. In looking at the growth potential of countries specifically, we find that without the foundation of an educated populous, a developing nation will remain at a disadvantage. In fostering education, tax bases increase, as does the livelihood of humanity throughout. Free-tuition for secondary educational is worthwhile and recommended overall. References De-Fraja, G. (Apr 2002). â€Å"The design of optimal education policies. † The Review of Economic Studies, 69(2), 437-466. Dynarski, S. (May 2002). â€Å"The behavioral and distributional implications of aid for college. † The American Economic Review, 92(2), 279-285. Feldman, S. & Steenbergen, M. R. (Jun 2001). â€Å"The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. † American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 658-677. Foondun, A. R. (Nov 2002). â€Å"The issue of private tuition: An analysis of the practice in Mauritius and selected South-East Asian countries. † International Review of Education, 48(6), 485-515.