My country is russia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

My country is russia - Essay Example As Paltsev and Reilly (2009) point out, the US and Europe remain wary of energy rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Weak Institutions Russia ranks 133rd out of 144 countries in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2012-2013. According to Aidis and Estrin (2005), the formal institutional environment is the main barrier in developing entrepreneurship in Russia. Corruption is the important factor due to the low income of the governing classes. Business cannot develop when property rights are not fully enforced, and there is no rule of law which provides a conducive environment for entrepreneurship. Adequate finance for private enterprise to flourish, is also lacking. Social Unity 100 billionaires own 30% personal wealth in Russia compared to a global figure of less than 2%. Russia has a dearth in social capital, which is based on trust, values and networks. Putnam and Pollock opine that social capital is â€Å"the capacity for self-organizat ion and collective action in pursuit of some common good† (Menyashev & Polishchuk, p 2). Social capital can lead to economic development in two ways. One is by cutting transaction costs in the private sector and the other by finding a solution to the agency problem between the government and society. Policies Energy Scenario Russia has diversified to find new customers in China, Japan and North America for natural gas. The state-owned Gazprom owns most of the gas reserves and pipelines after the Soviet disintegration. It has also created new pipelines that would bypass the other ex-Soviet republics. It has the eighth largest oil reserves in the world. Production of oil increased from 2000 to 2004 after which there has been a slowdown. On the other hand, the electricity sector has been reorganized, which has attracted foreign players. Russia formed the Gas OPEC or Troika inspite of which, spare capacity has moved beyond the OPEC. When it moved beyond usual production by exploit ing the Arctic and East Siberia, US became oil independent. Moreover, many countries also increased their oil production. When it reduced subsidies, maximized energy efficiency, and upgraded energy infrastructure, it did not offer reform to the sector and the politicized firms could not take advantage of this development. The demand for oil reduced because of factors like energy efficiency measures, Europe bypassing Russia and the breakthrough in energy resources. This has been despite a growth in population of Russia. Weak Institutions Due to excessive bureaucracy, there is a growth in informal networks, which help to mobilize resources. There is intimacy and reciprocity in such networks. The entrepreneurs use only short-term finance which could point to an underdeveloped banking sector with poor collateral laws. The liability ratio is less than one which restricts the scale of enterprise whether as a startup or for the purpose of expansion. Trade credit in the form of loans from o ne firm to another in the supply chain is used and the profit earned is ploughed back into the business. Unclear bureaucratic policies increase the cost to business. According to Transparency International, public officials and civil servants, including the police, are the most corrupt institutions in Russia. In 2012, Russia ranked 101 in the overall quality of infrastructure. Though Russia is one of the most educated countries, the quality of education is declining. Life expectancy is low when compared to countries with similar GDP. The number of

Gentrification And The Effects On Urban Development Sociology Essay

Gentrification And The Effects On Urban Development Sociology Essay Today, the urban development is vulnerable to the growing impact of gentrification. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the process of gentrification emerges under the impact of multiple factors, including economic and social ones and the process of globalization, which stimulate consistent changes in urban development. At the same time, the process of urban development leads to socioeconomic and demographic changes, provoked by the gentrification. However, possible effects of gentrification are still under-researched and the debate on whether gentrification leads to positive or negative effects persists. Nevertheless, changes in the development of cities are significant and force policy makers either to support or to slow down the process of gentrification. However, any attempt of policy makers to regulate the process of gentrification and, therefore, urban development confronts the problem of the interference of state in the process of local economic development. In such a situation, policy makers should understand clearly whether gentrification has positive or negative effects and whether benefits of gentrification outweigh its disadvantages. In fact, the support of gentrification is essential only on the condition of the positive effect on the urban development but, in actuality, the risk of widening gaps between different social classes, namely between the rich and the poor, may widen that may lead to the exclusion of the poor and their marginalization. Therefore, the process of gentrification needs to be studied in details but policy makers should take into consideration the fact that gentrification has a considerable impact on the social, economic and demographic development of modern urban areas. THE ESSENCE OF GENTRIFICATION Definition of gentrification Gentrification is a relatively new trend, although specialists (De Courcy Hinds, 1987) refer the origin of gentrification to the mid-20th century and the post-World War II period, when considerable changes in communities inhabited by representatives of lower- and working class had started. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the experience of Brooklyn, New York: On November 22, 1966, a small group of city construction workers arrived at the corner of State and Nevins Street in Brooklyn with orders to raze an abandoned brownstone. Having recently gained possession of the dilapidated four-story building through non-payment of taxes, the city had become concerned that the empty townhouse was a gathering place for homeless men and drug users and decided to demolish it (Osman, 2011, 1). However, it is only by the late 20th century, the trend to gentrification had become strong and today this is one of the most significant trends in the urban development. At this point, specialists (McKenzie, 2006) define gentrification as the process of shift of the middle class population in low income and working class communities. As a rule, the native population of low-income and working class communities is steadily replaced by representatives of the upper-class and professionals, who settle in the area, whereas the share of the native population decreases substantially. The wealthier population moves to low-income and working class communities, settles their and starts developing local communities. In such a situation, the native population of these communities has to move to other areas and settle there. Nevertheless, the process of gentrification is still under-researched and needs further studies because this process is quite complicated and relatively new. This is why researchers attempt to explore the process of gentrification in the context of urban development (Sassen, 1995). In such a way, it is possible to understand its effects on urban development. However, before studying effects of gentrification on urban development, it is necessary to dwell upon basic causes of gentrification. Causes of gentrification can help to understand the essence of this process and its effects in a long-run perspective. Economic causes of gentrification On analyzing causes of gentrification, specialists (Brandes Gratz, 1989) point out economic concerns as one of the major causes of gentrification. To put it more precisely, the economic development of large cities contributes to the fast progress and growth of the population along with the growth of needs and requirements of the population concerning residential areas, conveniences and environment. In such a situation, the younger generation of professionals and representatives of the middle class often prefers to move to low-income and working class communities, where they can afford purchasing a permanent lodging at a relatively low price and, thus, start living separately from their parents, owning their own lodging. The availability of lodging and its relatively low price attracts representatives of the middle class, who look for independence and affordable lodging. In addition, many professionals are driven to low-income and working class communities by their professional concerns. For instance, if professionals work in the city, they feel more comfortable, when they live close to their work that allows them to save travel time as well as money. In such a situation, economic concerns become prior to representatives of the middle class and professionals, mainly young people, who move to low-income and working class communities from traditional areas of their living. Social causes of gentrification In actuality, social factors also play an important part in the emergence of gentrification in modern cities that affects consistently their development. In this regard, specialists (Ley, 1995) argue that artists, teachers and cultural administrators are in the avant-garde of gentrification because they seek for new place of residence, where they can settle being free of the dependence on automotive transportation and other issues emerging in the suburban areas, where representatives of the middle class normally live. In fact, young graduates, educators, artists and other representatives of the middle class prefer to settle closer to the city center to get access to basic conveniences, services and important city areas, including hospitals, trade centers and other areas. In such a way, they attempt to maintain the lifestyle they have used to while studying and get wider access to basic services they need at the moment. In addition, gentrification increases their independence from par ents and automotive transport. In such a way, representatives of the middle class move to low-income and working class communities. Economic globalization At the same time, some specialists (Ley, 1986) point out that the process of gentrification is closely intertwined and is provoked by the process of globalization. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the fact that the process of globalization contributes to the free and fast movement of capital along with the migration of the population. The migration of the population and movement of capital being enhanced by the free movement of capital stimulates gentrification. Representatives of the middle class purchase houses in low-income and working class communities and they can repair and improve to match their standards of living. In this regard, immigrants with a relatively high level of income can also move to low-income and working class community, where they can purchase houses at a relatively low price and repair them respectively to their standards. At the same time, globalization contributes to the emergence of banking and service activities which replace the traditional manufacturing core of the urban economy. In such a situation, professional working in the banking industry and professionals working in different industries providing services prefer to move to low-income and working class communities, where they can settle close to their workplace, whereas many professionals today work just at home that allow them to save time and money on transportation. At the same time, low-income and working class communities attract them due to the relatively low price and location close to the city center and respective conveniences and services being available to representatives of the middle class living in these communities. THE EFFECTS OF GENTRIFICATION ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT Economic effects of gentrification In actuality, the process of gentrification leads to consistent changes in urban development and affects consistently the economic development of communities vulnerable to the impact of gentrification. In this regard, many specialists warn that the obvious problem being that the low income portion of the social fold is being disregardedà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬literally and figuratively (Whatà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s Up with Gentrification, 2007, 5). What is meant here is the fact that gentrification leads to the replacement of poor, working class population by representatives of the middle class. In such a situation, low-income families and representatives of the working class have to move from their communities to other ones, where the standards of living are even lower than that of their own communities inhabited by representatives of the middle class. Representatives of the middle class, in their turn, inhabit low-income and working class communities start consistent changes in local communities, where they settle. These changes lead to consistent raise in standards of living because they repair their houses and stimulate the development of commerce and different services, which are essential for the maintenance of their high standards of living. In such a way, representatives of the middle class invest substantial funds in the development of local communities to match them to their traditional standards of living, which are naturally consistently higher than standards of living for low-income families and representatives of the working class. At the same time, the rise of standards of living, significant investments, the development of the local infrastructure, services and facilities increases substantially the price of real estate in the community as well as costs of living in the community. In such a situation, representatives of the middle class settling in low-income and working class community bring considerable investments but these investments lead to the increase of costs of living in communities making the life unaffordable for low-income and working class population. As a result, the economic development of communities vulnerable to the impact of gentrification changes consistently. Specialists (McKenzie, 2006) argue that representatives of the middle class moving to low-income and working class communities boost their economic development that leads to the increase in housing prices and overall rise of costs of living. As a result, low-income and working class communities turn from poverty stricken communities into successful and rapidly progressing communities, where business activities emerge successfully. At first glance, economic effects of gentrification are positive. However, specialists (Sassen, 1995) warn that such positive effects of gentrification can have extremely dangerous side-effects, especially in relation to low-income and working class. To put it more precisely, the low-income and working class population has to move from the communities, where people used to live before the arrival of representatives of the middle class. Often they have to move away from the areas located close to the city center and they should look for cheap lodging. However, as the process of gentrification emerges, they have substantial problems with finding cheap lodging, while they cannot afford constructing their own houses, which used to be the prerogative of representatives of the middle class. Representatives of the low-income and working class cannot afford purchasing their own homes as well. In such a situation, they are doomed to live in outskirts of large cities or other areas, where cond itions of living deteriorate and become unbearable for the population. In contrast, representatives of the middle class improve conditions of living, stimulate the development of business activities. As a result, the poor are forced to live in communities suffering from economic stagnation, whereas the rich and middle class prosper. The economic disparity between classes deteriorates the economic development of low-income and working class. The disparity in economic development of different parts of cities leads to the backwardness of the parts inhabited by low-income and working class, whereas parts of cities inhabiting by middle class prosper. The economic prosperity stimulated by gentrification improves the local infrastructure and opens new ways for the development of business activities. As a result, the wealth of the middle and upper-class increases and is accumulated in the hands of representatives of the middle and upper-class. In contrast, the poor grow poorer and cannot afford living within the city that leads to their marginalization. Social effects of gentrification At the same time, consistent economic changes affect the development of the social life of communities vulnerable to the impact of gentrification. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the deterioration of the economic situation in urban areas and the deterioration of the position of low-income and working class. Representatives of the middle class are also vulnerable to the impact of gentrification. However, the impact of gentrification is different in relation to low-income and working class and in relation to the middle class. Economic changes affect consistently the position of both classes that naturally contributes to consistent social changes. In fact, the poor are vulnerable to the negative impact of gentrification. First of all, they have to move from their traditional residential areas to new ones, where they have to start a new life and where conditions of living are worse compared to the communities they used to live in. Representatives of the low-income and working class have to live in new communities and start a new life, which naturally evokes a number of social problems, among which it is necessary to develop basic infrastructure and positive relationships within the community. Furthermore, as the poor have to move to a new residential area, they often have to change their workplace because they cannot always afford covering transportation costs or the schedule of their work makes their work impossible. As they change the workplace, they may face the problem of unemployment, especially because they have to move to areas with the poor business development and with stagnating economy. In such a situation, representatives of the low-income and working class can face another problem à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬ the problem of high crime rates in areas, where they settle after they have to move from their communities under the impact of gentrification. In fact, being in a desperate position and having no means for living, the poor are forced to commit crimes to earn for living and to afford living in a new community, where they move to from communities now inhabited by representatives of the middle class mainly. Representatives of the low-income and working class slip to criminal activities that naturally increase the social tension in poverty-stricken neighborhoods, where they live. Another social problem representatives of the lower class face is the lack of access to education. In fact, as they are removed from traditional residential areas, where they used to live, the poor have to develop their life in new communities and areas, which are often underdeveloped. They cannot afford developing education organizations and education system in their new community on their own. The state and local authorities are not always capable and willing to support the population of local communities. As a result, new communities inhabiting by the poor either have insufficient capacities to provide access to education for students in these communities, or have no education organizations at all. Obviously, the lack of access to education will increase the social tension even more because without education individuals cannot get well-paid jobs and good career opportunities. In addition, children living in low-income communities with the high level of crime rates are vulnerable t o the impact of their criminal environment. Therefore, the position of the poor will deteriorate, whereas social problems will increase over and over again. In addition, it is worth mentioning the fact that health care services are not available to the poor, who have to move to new residential areas after representatives of the upper class have replaced them in their traditional residential areas. In fact, health care services are not available as education services. Today, health care services are very expensive and the poor cannot afford the development of health care organizations in their communities, whereas the state lacks funds for the provision of health care services to all people. In such a situation, the poor are deprived of basic opportunities to have access to basic health care services. In contrast to the poor, representatives of the middle class can benefit from gentrification economically but they can hardly benefit from gentrification in social terms. What is meant here is the fact that representatives of the middle class exclude representatives of the lower class from the mainstream culture and benefits associated with the fast economic development of their communities. In fact, in social terms, gentrification leads to the growing tension between representatives of different social classes. To put it in simple words, representatives of the middle class improve their conditions of living, whereas the poor become poorer and suffer from a bunch of socio-economic problems. Moreover, the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider and specialists (Sassen, 1995) forecast serious conflicts between the two classes under the impact of gentrification because the problem will aggravate and the gap between the two classes will widen. Demographic effects of gentrification Along with numerous economic and social effects of gentrification, specialists (McKenzie, 2006) distinguish demographic effects. In this respect, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the process of gentrification contributes to consistent demographic changes. In fact, representatives of the middle class purchasing houses in the low-income and working class communities tend to have a few children. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that representatives of the middle class, who move to low-income and working class communities, are young people mainly. As a rule, they are not having children, when they move to low-income and working class communities. They need substantial financial resources to start a new life in low-income and working class communities. In such a situation, representatives of the middle class prefer to invest in the repair of their new houses and the development of low-income and working class communities to transform them into prosperous co mmunities. In such a situation, the rise of taxes and costs of living decreases the capabilities of representatives of the middle class living in low-income and working class communities of having children. In a long-run perspective, gentrification leads to the aging of the population living in communities, where representatives of the middle class have moved to. The same trend can be traced in low-income and working class communities because they cannot afford maintaining large families. In such a situation, the risk of the demographic crisis emerges because both representatives of the middle and lower classes have a few children. Specialists (Brandes Gratz, 1989) argue that, in a long-run perspective, the demographic crisis provoked by gentrification can lead to the aging of the population. The latter may provoke the deterioration of the economic situation and provoke social problems. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF GENTRIFICATION Advantages of gentrification Obviously, gentrification has a number of advantages. First of all, gentrification stimulates the fast economic development of low-income and working class communities because representatives of the middle class invest substantial financial resources in the development of the communities. The investment and the development of local infrastructure increase housing prices in local areas. In such a situation, the housing taxes increase as the wealth of the community increases. Therefore, the economic development of communities under the impact of gentrification is accelerated. The development of communities stimulates the development of cities at large because cities benefit from the increased revenues obtained from taxation and accelerated economic development of would be low-income and working class communities. Representatives of the middle class obtain large opportunities for the further improvement of their standards of living. As a result, they benefit from gentrification. Disadvantages of gentrification On the other hand, gentrification brings a number of problems and has substantial disadvantages. First of all, Gentrification deteriorates the position of the poor, who have to move from low-income and working class communities, which are inhabited by representatives of the middle class. Their economic position becomes even worse as they have to move to new communities. In fact, the poverty breeds poverty being expelled from low-income and working class communities by representatives of the middle class. In addition, representatives of the lower class have to move to new communities, where a bunch of socioeconomic problems emerge. Among the major problems of socioeconomic problems, it is worth mentioning unemployment, the lack of access of the poor to education and basic health care services, and other problems. However, what is more important about gentrification is widening the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, the poor become poorer, whereas representatives of the middle class improve their position. In such a situation, gentrification can undermine the foundation of modern cities because it raises unsurpassable barriers between the rich and the poor living in the cities but this antagonism can provoke serious social conflicts, including growing crime rates, which may affect not only poverty stricken communities but also other communities, including communities inhabited by representatives of the middle class and communities emerged in terms of gentrification. CONCLUSION Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that gentrification is quite a controversial process. In actuality, it is obvious that gentrification affects consistently the urban development. However, effects of gentrification can be highly controversial. On the one hand, gentrification stimulates the economic development of communities, where representatives of the middle class move to. However, economic benefits may be short-run, whereas, in a long-run perspective, gentrification can lead to the widening gap between the rich and the poor in cities. The latter problem will lead to the deterioration of the social stability within cities. Nevertheless, the full impact of gentrification on urban development should be studied further.

Five Major Social Institutions :: essays papers

Five Major Social Institutions How has my personality been shaped by the five major instutions? Firstly, my family is one of the most influential parts of my life. My family has taught me all the values that I think that I would need in life. I was not raised in an abusive family, which shapes my personality by making me less aggressive towards my peers, and teaching me that you can^t get your way through force, but by patience. I think that my family has positively affected my life through treating me like I^m a person, something that gets hurt easily. Does education really affect the way I am? Maybe not directly, but indirectly. Education is a means of teaching some values, but that^s not education^s main purpose. Education teaches us about a great many things. In kindergarten, you learn the alphabet and to count to ten, in elementary school, you learn penmanship, and the four basic ways to get seventy through a chain of addition, grammar, and we start to want to do our own thing instead of everything that our parents want^s us to do. So, does education really affect our personality? No, it does not affect us. But, our friends at school do. Our friends will be either our good friend, or our worst enemy by the time we^re in high school. Friends shape the most of our personality out of the family. Another way that our friends have shaped the way that we are, is the way they treat us. For example, your friends call you names, talk trash behind your back, and generally talk trash around you now do you think that you would have good self-esteem? I do not think that would be possible, even if your parent are always calling you nice things, spoiling you rotten, you would still have bad self-esteem. The economy is a very essential part of our daily life, it shapes what shape our town or city will be in. If the economy is poor, do you think that it will draw a huge tourist crowd if the whole town or city was a ghetto? I personally do not think so. I think that it would turn out to be a heavily gang populated city, with many drug deals and prostitution going on. Luckily I was not raised in the ghetto, not to say that I am a particularly rich person, my family is just a little off to the good to do side, but not really. The economy has shaped the way that I am by where I was raised, I was for the majority of my young

Factoid Friday

Aaron Smith Factoid Friday Paper 3/5/2018 Donald Trump's presidency has brought a lot of controversy with it. His constant tweeting, his blunt statements, and his act-now-think-later mentality have earned him both praise and criticism since the moment he announced he would run for United States President. One act that has stirred up a lot of mixed emotions is President Trump's announcement of a ban that would prevent transgender individuals from serving in the military. This ban, which was first announced via President Trump's twitter account in late July, will override an Obama-era plan that was previously in place specifically to allow transgender individuals to serve in the military (Davis, 2017). Perhaps what is the most frustrating development of this ban for many people is the fact that it was revealed shortly after President Trump declared his great respect for members of the LGBT community and intentions to protect their individual rights and freedoms during his presidential campaign. While many have cited discrimination as the reason behind this act, President Trump and his staff have ensured the public that this ban is purely for national security reasons, and he wanted to assure the LGBT community that this is not a betrayal (Cooper, 2017). This ban has been a hotly debated topic for quite a while. While both the Trump administration, supporters of the ban, and those opposed to the ban all have valid arguments, anyone who is willing to fight and die for his or her country and its freedoms should have the opportunity to do so. This statement holds especially true for Americans because the United States was founded on this very principle. While the military shouldn't pay for gender reassignment surgeries and treatments, recruitment options should be open to all Americans, including transgender individuals. There are many reasons why this is acceptable, including the fact that transgender people are already serving in the military, transgender individuals provide little to no disruption of military activities, and the transgender ban is currently being scrutinized in court for its constitutionality. Taking all of this into consideration, it's hard to see a reason why transgender individuals shouldn't be allowed to fight for the freedom our country provides. It's difficult to argue that transgender individuals shouldn't be allowed in the military simply because there are already transgender people serving in the military today. In fact, as of 2016, there are an estimated 6,630 actively serving transgender individuals in the military and anywhere from 2,030 to 7,160 individuals serving in reserves. Along with these numbers, an estimated 150,000 transgender individuals have served since the year 2012, which is about 21% of all transgender adults in the United States according to UCLA researchers. In contrast, only 10% of the general non-transgender population has served (Hamblin, 2017). The fact that a higher percentage of transgender individuals has served in the United States military compared to those who do not identify as transgender should serve as an eye-opener to many. After all, active military service poses many risks, especially during times of conflict or war. In fact, several American and British armed forces members in Afghanistan were asked about the threats that they faced. The statistics, which are represented by the above image, are quite shocking. Roughly half of all individuals interviewed said that they saw at least one person killed while actively serving. One in every six people witnessed a close friend being injured or killed. One in four were injured by an IED, three in four experienced long-range attacks with rockets or mortars, and half had been attacked at close range with machine guns (Gee, 2017). The point of these statistics is that serving in the United States military can be dangerous, and if such a high percentage of transgender adults are willing to serve in the United States military and risk injury, they shouldn't be denied the ability to do so. The decision to serve in the United States Military should be respected regardless of any drama created by gender. Along with the fact that transgender Americans have already proved that they are willing to make the same sacrifices as their military comrades, a large majority of transgender individuals cause little to no disruption of military activity while serving. In fact, as far as disruption of military activity is concerned, transgender individuals who could possibly be disrupting military activity by getting reassignment surgery account for less than 1% of all available members. The actual number of all individuals estimated to have surgical treatments while actively serving was between 25 and 130 individuals – hardly enough to cause any meaningful hindrance to military activities (PBS, 2017).In regards to this same issue of military disruption, eighteen other countries were examined in a study to determine if transgender service members cause any noticeable problems. Overall, the study â€Å"didn't find any readiness or cohesion implications† involving transgender individuals. Many countries revealed concerns about bullying issues at one point, but it was later determined that simple policy changes were able to deal with this issue (PBS, 2017). If other countries are able to work around the minor ‘difficulties' that transgender individuals may pose, then why can't the United States as well? Surely if this situation is able to work for other countries, it can for Americans as well. Along with this information, President Trump's proposed ban has received legal criticism as well. There are concerns that this ban would violate the Constitutional rights of those individuals affected by the ban. One example of the legal obstacles that this ban has faced occurred in August of 2017. Two gay rights groups filed a lawsuit to ‘ban' the ban before it could be instated. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of five transgender women who are openly and actively serving in the military, for they feel strongly that this ban would violate their constitutional rights (Cooper, 2017). Although the lawsuit itself wasn't the cause, the individuals who filed the suit earned at least a temporary victory in late October, for the ban was temporarily blocked in court by a federal judge (Kheel, 2017). This same judge responsible for the blockage was quoted saying that the ban â€Å"does not appear to be supported by any facts.† Along with this, another federal judge reviewed this ban in court and halted the ban altogether (Marimow, 2017). He stated that active-duty transgender service men and women already suffer harmful consequences because of the president's policy. Some examples of said consequences include being set apart as inherently unfit, facing the threat of discharge, the inability to move ahead with long-term medical plans, and the inability to commission as an officer.Due to these two federal court rulings, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about regarding the legality of the ban. A third court case was carried out with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NLCR) and the GLBTQ Legal Advocates ; Defenders (GLAD) as the plaintiffs. They argued that the ban violates the Fifth Amendment rights of all transgender service members, and they pushed for the removal of the ban on funds for gender reassignment surgery (which accompanied the transgender ban). Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presided over the court. After the case ended, she wrote a 76-page memo emphasizing the fact that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim is a strong one that will prove difficult to refute once it reaches the Supreme Court. The fact that this ban has been heavily criticized, and in some cases acted upon, by not one, not two, but three highly-esteemed judges only serves to prove that this ban is in violation of the Fifth Amendment and is highly discriminatory against transgender individuals who are only trying to serve their country. This ban has only encountered setback after setback in court, yet the Secretary of Defense is still being pressured to produce a plan for both carrying out the ban and dealing with currently enlisted transgender individuals. Although President Trump is still pushing for action to be taken, the ban is still being processed through the courts as an appeal is being sought after due to the decisions made from past cases (Lopez, 2017). Although there are many ‘arguments' out there that support the idea of a United States Military with a transgender ban, they lack substantial evidence, and the evidence that is presented is far from accurate in most cases. President Trump's two main reasons for the ban, disruption of military service and health and medical costs, are easily discredited when all of the facts are lined out.In regards to ‘disruption of services,' it's clear to see why this isn't a legitimate issue for the United States Military. First of all, there is roughly, on estimate, a total of 13,500 transgender individuals serving actively, in the reserves, or in the National Guard. Of these 13,500 transgender individuals, only an estimated 25-130 active members will ever undergo long-term surgical treatments that would cause disruption while serving. These numbers, compared with the estimated 1,281,900 total of all active service member, along with the 801,200 estimated to be in reserve, account for far less than even one percent of the military's total service members (PBS, 2017). So, assuming that the highest estimate of 130 military members undergo surgical treatment while serving, an extremely insignificant fraction of all military members would be incapable of carrying out military duties while recovering. This accounts for .0015% of all available ‘manpower' at any given time for the military (PBS, 2017). That percentage is hardly worthy of being referred to as a ‘disruption.' The second main ‘reason' behind this ban is the potential costs. The President and his staff worry that the medical treatments and surgeries that transgender individuals require is an expensive and unnecessary cost to the United States Military budget. While gender reassignments and other surgeries are certainly expensive, as stated in the previous paragraph, only about 25-130 individuals will even have the operation done (PBS, 2017), and the military has historically not been required to pay for these surgeries unless they are proven medically necessary on a case-by-case basis. Along with this information, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 found that the total costs for these surgeries and treatments would amount to somewhere between 4.2-5.6 million dollars, or roughly ten percent of the annual military healthcare budget. For those that think this is a large amount of money, the annual amount of taxpayer dollars spent on medication for erectile dysfunction alone is over ten times this amount at 84 million dollars annually. Claiming that transgender medical costs are expensive and unnecessary is plain wrong. While not all treatments are medically ‘necessary,' several treatments are. Denying transgender individuals from serving in the military due to medical costs would be the equivalent of denying a diabetic the ability to serve; it makes no sense. President Trump has made a lot of changes since he was elected into Presidency. While his decisions usually at least make some sense, the transgender military ban makes no sense at all. His two main reasons for this ban, which were potential disruption of military activity and medical costs, are backed by little to no evidence, and his ban is coming across as discriminatory both in the public eye and in court so far. Transgender individuals should not be denied the right to serve because they have been allowed to serve (not openly) for several years with little to no problem, they don't cause any disruption or hindrance to military activity, and the ban itself is being reviewed for its potential violation of the Fifth Amendment and discrimination against transgender individuals. All of this effort for a ban that isn't necessary should be spent on something more useful to America.BibliographyBlake, Aaron. â€Å"Jim Mattis didn't undermine President Trump's transgender military ban. Trump already had.† The Washington Post. Last modified August 30, 2017. Accessed September 20, 2017.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/30/trumps-haphazard-transgender-military-ban. Cooper, Helene. â€Å"Trump says transgender ban is a ‘great favor' for the military.† The New York Times. Last modified August 10, 2017.Accessed September 22, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html. Davis, Jilie Hirschfeld. â€Å"Military transgender ban to begin within 6 months, memo says.† New York Times. Last modified August 23, 2017.Accessed October 12, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban.html. Editorial Board. â€Å"Editorial: making way for transgender troops.à ¢â‚¬  Chicago Tribune. Last modified December 12, 2017. Accessed December 12, 2017.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials. Hamblin, James. â€Å"The cost of banning transgender service members.† The Atlantic. Last modified July 26, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2018.http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/07/things-that-cost-more-than-medical-care-for-transgender-soldiers/534945. Jouvenal, Justin. â€Å"Federal judge in D.C. blocks part of Trump's transgender military ban.† The Washington Post. Last modified November 30, 2017. Accessed November 16, 2017.http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judge-in-dc-blocks-part-of-trumps-transgender-military-ban/2017/10/30. Kheel, Rebecca. â€Å"Court partially blocks trump's transgender military ban.† The Hill. Last modified October 30, 2017. Accessed November 9, 2017.http://thehill.com/policy/defense/357827-court-partially-blocks-trumps-directive-on-transgender-military-ban. Lopez, Germ an. â€Å"Federal judge: military must allow transgender recruits starting on January 1.† Vox. Last modified November 28, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2018.http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/28/16709494. Marimow, Ann E. â€Å"Federal judge says Trump administration can't stop funding sex-reassignment surgeries for military members.† Wasnington Post. Last modified November 21, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2018.http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/a-second-judge-blocks-trump-administration. PBS. â€Å"Fact-checking Trump's reasons for a transgender military ban.† PBS Newshour. Last modified August 28, 2017. Accessed September 29, 2017.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fact-checking-trumps-reasons-transgender-military-ban. Rikleen, Lauren Stiller. â€Å"Trump's transgender military ban hurts more than just the troops.† Wbur. Last modified August 30, 2017. Accessed October 30, 2017.http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/08/30/trump-military-transg ender-lauren-stiller-rikleen.

CCOT Analysis Essay

The Indian Ocean was a significant division of water that was bounded primarily by the Indian Subcontinent, the Arabian Peninsula, and eastern Africa. Many changes occurred over time in the area, especially from 500 BCE and 1400 CE. The interaction of Buddhism and Confucianism altered, increased wealth came to new towns and ports, and population increased due to advancements in technology. Though there were many changes, many things stayed constant in the region. The Indian Ocean region continued to keep many economic/religious factors the same, such that Islamic world continued to spread and exotic goods remained as the basis of trade. Buddhism and Confucianism were the main religious views in the Indian Ocean region. They both flourished initially keeping a stable ratio, but Buddhism began to diminish during the Tang Dynasty. The Tang Dynasty based their civil service exams on Confucianism, which as a result led to more focus on Confucianism and later to the downfall of Buddhism. Interactions between developing trade routes led to city popularity, wealth and success. Such cities include, Cairo, Quilon, and Melaka, which became major factors in Afro-Eurasian trade. Technology in the region also led to many different changes in the Indian Ocean region. The three-field crop rotation rapidly changed the rise of cities. Since they were now able to grow dissimilar crops in the same area, more food and trade products came about. As urbanization increased, simultaneously, rural areas increased system also played a big role. As cities grew, they began to prosper. Agriculture boomed and therefore more opportunities for merchants were available as trade was excellent in the area. Many significant transitions and alterations occurred in the Indian Ocean region, which encouraged, primarily, economics, religion, and city success. Coming from the changes that occurred, many things also did remain the same in the Indian Ocean region. Islam continued to spread throughout the division. Trade relations have existed between Arabia and the Indian subcontinent, which linked the Indian Subcontinent to the Islamic world. On top of Islam’s prosperous spreading, Indian trade was still and is still based on exotic goods. A good example of this could be how gold, slaves, silk, and spices were traded at around 150 CE, as well as 700-1000 CE. These constants were significant for the foundation of the regions trade, and the rise of a new religion. The Indian Ocean region had many changes and continuities that all occurred over time. Some changes were made including the rise of cities and trade, and the fall of Buddhism. The continuities include the constant spread of the Islamic world, and the same basis of trade; exotic goods. These factors all shaped the region building a stronger base of advancement demographically, culturally, and economically.