PERFORMANCE BUDGETING Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

PERFORMANCE BUDGETING - Coursework Example This makes it easy and efficient to evaluate the performance of the concerned managers at job delivery. Performance budgeting focuses on the changes in the funding of the budget rather than the approximation fronted by the previous budget cycles. This makes it more flexible and appropriate for public budgeting whose demands are dynamic. It offers flexibility for the relocation of budgets when needs arises. In addition to these, it identifies agencies and programs that seek similar goals hence drawing inter-relationships to the legislature attentions and enabling a possibility of increased awareness and budgets to the local governments. Finally, performance budgeting provides a platform for rewarding achievement and imposing of sanctions in the case of poor performance. This attributes makes it suitable for public sector budgeting at large including the federal government. However, it will present major challenges to the federal government. The efficiency ratings used in this model are rudimentary because they measure bureaucratic activity quantitatively rather than qualitatively. This shortcoming means the federal government could by focusing on the quantity of the services rather than its quality. Moreover not all bureaucratic activities are easily quantifiable. Performance budgeting system is very handy when evaluating the output of the managers after budget allocations. It provides an insight on how the allocated budget was spent, its impact and effects. This model of accounting is hence suitable for public budgeting where integrity and service delivery is

No child left behind Act Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

No child left behind Act - Essay Example The also mean to servechildren with disabilities, those who originate from low revenue families, and even those entrenched with ethnic and racial propagations. The NCLB act was put into legislation on January 8, 2008 and signed by President George Bush. The sole aim of NCLB is to increase the reach of the national government into the management of both international and local schools and as well raise the stakes for states, districts, and schools. The increases funding for the specific schools that serve poor students, decrees ‘highly qualified’ teachers for every classroom, and consequently holds all schools that receivenational funds answerable to raising the success of all students (Hackett 2011). Education is the proficiency and capability of developing children’s reasoning ability and how they adapt to the curriculumthey are subjected to. This is what the federal government has tried to achieve in the No Child Left Behind act where the main objective was to change the nature of curricula public schools use. In essence, the latter compelled former President Lyndon B. Johnson, on April 11, 1965 to signing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The then united President, Lyndon B. Johnson declared, â€Å"I believe deeply no law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America† (Cunningham & Redmond 2009). In any case, the act signaled the start of more policies that would effectively identify the role of the Federal government in impacting child growth and education. However, this still leaves the question of â€Å"is the NCLD act improving the quality of teaching?† Well, the act deludes off the blame of poor child performance on teachers but only requires â€Å"highly qualified† teachers in every classroom by the academic year 2005/2006. For this case, â€Å"highly qualified† teachers are defined as those who hold a bachelor’s degree, are certified or licensed by

Twentieth Century Drama Essay Example for Free

Twentieth Century Drama Essay The inspector is interrogating the Birlings and Gerald Croft. He is trying to get the truth out of them without letting on that he already knows everything. I think that some of the characters have changed for instance Sheila; she knows that the inspector already knows that Mrs Birling turned Eva away when she came for help. Sheilas realisation of what the inspector is doing is quite clear when Mrs Birling is denying the fact that Eric is the father of Evas unborn baby, and Sheila says stop it mother, stop it, as Sheila already knows that the inspector knows this. Some of the most dramatic moments in the play are Sheilas obvious understanding of Mrs Birling ignorance that it was Erics baby. Sheila was horrified the Evas unborn baby was dead. Whereas Mrs Birling doesnt really care. Another dramatic point in the play is when Eric returns and the curtain falls, this causes great tension within the audience again. I believe that J. B Priestleys purpose in writing the play may be because of social injustice, he obviously had a strong belief in treating people equally and to be careful of how you treat them and he is trying to get this across to the audience. He expresses his feelings in this scene through the characters especially with Mrs Birling. It is obvious that Mrs Birling is not ashamed of what she has done, but the inspector is trying to make her aware of this. I also believe that J. B Priestley uses the inspector as a mouthpiece, the inspector is trying to communicate the same message as J. B Priestley is to the audience. I think that at that at the end of Act 2 when the curtain falls the audience would feel anxious about what is going to happen next. Priestley must be successful if the audience experiences this tension. This scene is a crucial part of the play because before now we didnt know that Eric was the father of Evas unborn baby and that Mrs Birling knew Eva Smith, but near the end this is all revealed. At the end of the play the inspector makes a speech that finally changed Eric and Sheila, it altered their perspective in ways such as, to treat people with respect and treat them fairly. This could be reflected in the audience, as the Birling family were of a high class and the majority of the play who came to see this play was also of the same standard so they could relate to the plays events. The audience may think that they have done something terrible in the past like the Birlings had done and might think more carefully next time. I think that J. B Priestley has been completely successful with this play as a piece of theatre because of the above reasons.

My Inspirational Leader An Effective Leader Management Essay

My Inspirational Leader An Effective Leader Management Essay Whilst considering someone who is an effective leader I researched well-known historical individuals such as Churchill, Gandhi or Napoleon all of which had completely different personalities and attitudes. After careful consideration I then decided to focus my attention on Sir Winston Churchill (Churchill) his unique story of success provides an excellent example of someone who is an effective leader. During Churchills years in politics he developed his leadership skills and mental abilities and at the beginning of the Second World War these matched the requirements of the situation better than those of his political contemporaries. During the 1930s Churchill spoke out vigorously on the rise of the Nazi party. This ensured that when conflict between Britain and Germany unsurprisingly occurred, Churchill stood out as a statesman who had fought against the threat of Nazism for many years while other politicians had tried to appease Adolf Hitler. At this point in time Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the time, lost the confidence of Parliament and resigned and new national support was given to Churchill the British public felt that he was a politician who understood the situation and someone who could be trusted to lead the country in a difficult time, it was clear at that point that Churchill had the skills and spirit to unite and lead the nation. Churchill used his personal skills and patriotism to motivate and inspire the British public to endure the hardships they faced with good humour, strength and resourcefulness. Churchill also used his extensive diplomacy and communication skills to forge alliances between nations with differing political and social philosophies, such as the communist Soviet Union and the capitalist United States. Churchill played a major role in the outcome of the Second World War, he had confidence in himself and was able to handle the crisis and he fully trusted his leadership abilities. He knew that would solve the problems, (Kotter, J. P., 1990), and so also will lead the people who trusted him. There is no doubt that his central leading style (Kotter, J. P, 1990) was nothing but excellent. One of the main properties Churchill had as a leader was the capability of inspiring people, regardless of the circumstances; he challenged people to make a unified effort.   Let us go forward together (Churchill 1940) this was his favourite slogan. Churchill had a skill of inspiring people to delivery and contribute above their limits, making them deliver more to a situation. Churchill constantly demonstrates enthusiasm, determination and optimism. Churchill used his personality to encourage individuals to work hard and excel in the jobs they were given. An effective leader accepts that challenge is a corporate asset and they have a legitimate responsibility to their followers (Howell and Shamir, 2005). When challenge is met with appropriate leader responsibilities the appropriate meaning leaders just need to get the job done, but in a way that encourages vision and considers cultural values (Kouzes-Posner, 2007). Winston Churchill was a man of immense  courage  and  creativity,  these and his other qualities shaped the war during Britains darkest hour without such a strong leader results could have been very different. Question 1b Forms of Leadership There are two forms of leadership:   Firstly, transformational leadership (Burns, J.M., 1978) that focuses on what a leader delivers rather than on their personal characteristics and their role within the team. Secondly, transactional leadership (Burns, J.M., 1978) demonstrated by leaders this involves directing followers motivating them motivating to appeal to their own self-interest. Transactional leaders often comes from formal responsibility in a company. The main goal of the follower is to carry out the instructions of the leader. Churchill encouraged people to find a way to win the world war and created an environment that persuaded thinking and instinct. He also emphasized methodical problem solving, rethinking, and gave careful reasoning rather than giving unsupported opinions (Kouzes-Posner, 2007). Churchill made a big change for Britain by saving the nation that almost had no chance to win the war against Germany. Transformational leaders are inspiring because they expect the best from team members as well as themselves. This approach to leadership often leads to high productivity and commitment from everyone in their team. The drawback of transformational leadership is that while the leaders enthusiasm is passed onto the group the leader needs to be supported by people as a result often transactional and transformational leadership styles are used. Transactional leaders ensure that routine work is carried out reliably, whereas transformational leaders look after initiatives that develop and add enhancements to a situation. Transformational leaders appeal to followers higher sense of morality, ethics and vision. Typically a Transformational leader must encourage the same motivational values they believe and allow followers to share similar beliefs. Churchill motivated followers to action by encouraging people to shared values and by satisfying their aspirations and expectations. Transactional leadership is based an exchange of something of value in which the leader possesses or controls in substitution for the followers return for their services, i.e. jobs for votes, subsidies for campaign contributions. The transactional style is typically what happens in a contracting scenario. In contrast, transactional leadership is a more conventional style in which work is exchanged for resources. A transactional leader influences subordinates by rewards in exchange for their efforts, follows workers closely and takes corrective actions when required. Transactional leaders ensure that routine work is done reliably, while transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value to a situation. Word count: 910 My Progress as a Leader Question 2a Inquiries and Opportunities My inquiries to date have been focused around my part-time job in Tesco. Since TMA01 I have received feedback from my manager about my performance since joining the team and my efforts are being recognised and are helping me to progress further within the company. I have been working with Tesco for two months now and since starting I have been working for all of the different departments, this is now giving me the experience I need to achieve my goal as a Team Leader. Lots of my time has dealing directly with customers, often working very long hours and sometimes weekends. I am currently working with five people and I plan to apply for the team leader role within the next few months. My career goals of becoming a team leader will require strong management practices as well as strong leadership practices. My current activities and interests will help to educate myself and become a stronger leader. I will monitor the competition as well as the industry changes and if changes are made in the company I will understand why because I will have the knowledge of what is going on in the market sector. I will integrity inspire people with a shared vision of the future, set clear goals and motivate people towards them, manage delivery, communicate well w ith a teams (Kouzes-Posner, 2007).   If promoted I will continue to make decisions based on what is best for the company and customers. When making these decisions I will make sure they will coincide with our companys vision and values along with the companys strategy. When change is necessary I will ensure that I am proactive about making the change as well as positive about the change to minimise resistance. Question 2b Aspects of Leadership Leadership is ultimately about getting things done. It is the ability to influence, motivate and provide support others so that they can best contribute towards the successful attainment of the goals of their community or organisation. Productive inquiry is about taking action (Ramsey 2010). Recently I moved to another area within the company focusing on customer service, since moving I soon realised that there were many things that could be done much better. I quickly adapted to the environment, decided on taking corrective actions; helped developed operational goals and daily objectives to measure our success. The first item I noticed was that the morale was very low, people were pointing fingers and the productivity was awful, people were spending lots of time complaining rather than focusing on ways to improve the situation. Straightaway I implemented some changes after observing what was going on and after two weeks colleagues attitudes started to change and morale has become much better. I feel that by using all the practices of leadership and management described above I will excel in my current position as well as leverage myself into a better position within my company. Word count: 491

What Is Satanism? :: essays research papers

What is Satanism? Satanism is the religion of the flesh. Happiness, to the Satanist must be found here and now. No heaven exists to go to after death and no Hell of burning punishment awaits the sinner. Strongly attached to our family and close associations, we make excellent friends. Satanists do not believe that you can love everyone and treat every person the same. By failing to hate you make yourself unable to love. Feared by their enemies and loved by their friends, Satanist's build their stronghold in the community. The term occult means "hidden" or those things or teachings that are unknown information, knowledge that is gained beyond the five senses. Therefore, knowledge is received by some supernatural involvement or connection. Anton LaVey of the first church of Satan in San Francisco, California, says that "Satanism is a blatantly selfish brutal religion- It is based on the belief that man is inherently a selfish, violent creature†¦ that the earth will be ruled by those who fight and win." Satanism challenges the biblical teachings regarding mans relationship to others. Young Satanist's believe that the strong will rule with Satan. Power has become an obsession with young Satanists. It is sought after on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. Gaining knowledge that others do not posses is another aspect of the occult. When an individual has more knowledge it allows them a degree of power over those who do not have access to that knowledge. The Ouija Board has proven particularly useful. The Ouija Board is an instrument for communication with the spirits of the dead. The Ouija Board is an open door into the world of the occult and demonic activity. Disembodied speak to the living through the medium of the Ouija Board. This information is believed to be truth from the other side; Lucifer's delusion to gain our allegiance. Most cases are with people who have used the Ouija Board. The Ouija Board is the easiest way to become possessed. The greatest danger of the Ouija is that an individual begins to place his trust and future hope in the message the board brings. Christians can offer several reasons as to why one should not be involved in the use of the Ouija Board. One is simply that the bible condemns it as being involvement in the occult. And then theirs the fact that the message received is often false and misleading. According to scripture (Matt 4:9, Rev, 12:19) "Satan's goal is to deceive man by blinding him to the truth of the gospel and to receive worship for himself. Satan desires to alter an individuals values and turn them against

Animal Testing Essay -- Science Experiments, Animals, Guinea Pigs

Canary in the kitchen detects carbon monoxide! Animal testing must be banned for unnecessary tests. Animals should not be guinea pigs. Animals still feel the pain when they are injected with medicine just like humans. Humans can defend themselves and stop the pain, but the animals get strapped down and cannot move. It is better to have tests run on animals because animals will help find cures faster. Animal testing must be banned for unnecessary tests because a lot of animals are dying for no reason. Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products (Animal Testing 1). That only leaves six percent for medical research (1). Ninety percent of all animals used in research are rats and mine (Animals Used in Experiments 4). Cosmetic testing is banned in Belgium, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (1). The United States has many companies that continue to legally perform horrible tests on animals (1). The United States Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products (1). The Animal Welfare Act is the only federal law to require basic standards of care, housing and treatment to the animals that are kept in the labs for testing (4). The LD50 test is one of the worst tests that was developed back in 1927 and is still used today (1) . Groups of animals are dosed with different amounts of a test substance in order to determine the does which kills half of the animals (1)! Animals are force-fed this substance (1). Why would we want to put poor animals in this kind of pain for no reason? Animals to the society can be their world. Animal lovers in the society would probably g... ...and are just like humans (3). Scientists on the other hand feel like there is a need to endanger the animals because they are trying to find a cure for the human population to all the diseases that are out in the world(3). Animal testing should be banned for unnecessary tests because why would the government want to put human through the same thing that the animals go through. Animals should not be guinea pigs to the horrible tests that the scientists run on them. The animals should be able to be free and not have to be strapped down and forced-fed. Animals feel the pain just as well as a human would, but a human can walk away from the pain and say â€Å"no†. Sometimes it is better to run tests on animals to find a cure for cancer, HIV, and other diseases but the government and the scientists should find a different way to do this with out killing so many animals.

Foreign Policy Essay

Tension between the need for a peace without victory and the nightmare of a mighty European super-state subject by one power formed a fundamental dynamic of liberal internationalism with regard to the First World War. These contradictory, yet oddly complementary, principles and self-interests necessitated the formation of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF). American politico-military policy in the Great War, as marked by presidential decision-making, was aimed at securing the mainly desirable peace while preventing a German victory. This combination of idealism and realism created the basis of Wilsonian foreign policy, and neither can be completely isolated from the other in explaining American involvement. Traditionally, American defense and foreign policies were in agreement both were predicated on the Monroe Doctrine. They assumed separation from European politico-military commitments and concomitant activism in the Western Hemisphere. Ever as the nation’s decisive victory in the Spanish American War, Americans had considered they a great power whether or not the U.S. was renowned as such in Europe. By 1914, the U.S. was the world’s leading industrial power and provincial force, but a century of inertia kept the nation’s compass set firmly on isolation. At the same time, America was not usually regarded by the great powers of Europe as a member of the club. European politicians usually were ignorant of American affairs and not mainly interested in learning (Erald A. Combs, 1983). In the second place, the Spanish Republic was not a democratic Republic in our sagacity of the word â€Å"democratic.† (Walter Lafeber, 1993)In the United States, violence is the last alternative of a small group of disgruntled citizens. In Spain, though, the majority believed in violence. The liberal minority which believed in Anglo-American or in French traditions was swept aside. But democracy should mean something more than majority rule. Democracy, if it is to have any moral force at all, should include the idea of civil rights and of protection of minorities. In Spain, the liberals who did believe in civil rights and in defense of minorities were forced from power. President Azaà ±a, a liberal, went into a type of retirement from public life and despaired of the Republic he had helped to set up. Azaà ±a wrote, â€Å"With most Spaniards it is not enough that they themselves can admit and believe what they like. They are offended, they are outraged, and they rise in revolt–if the same liberty is approved to anyone who thinks in a different way from them.† Salvador de Madariaga, the great liberal philosopher and historian, agreed with President Azaà ±a. Madariaga went into voluntary exile and refused to support either side in the Spanish Civil War. Other liberals lost their authority. Some were executed. Though supporters of General Franco have exaggerated the so-called â€Å"Red Terror† in Republican Spain, it is however a fact that–once the civil war had begun–the Republic was no longer competent or willing to guarantee freedom of speech, liberty of the press, freedom of religion, trial by jury. Throughout the Civil War, few Spaniards who dissented from government policy have the liberties which you and I think of as a essential part of a democratic society. When groups dissented from the Popular Front, they were ousted from the association government. When the groups were small enough, they were suppressed–as was the Trotskyite P.O.U.M. In short, the Republic was not all its American backers thought it to be. And, as Communist influence improved in Spain, as the Communists wrested power from liberals and socialists, the Republic became continually less democratic. Winston Churchill stood apart from his own Conservative Party and destined Neville Chamberlain’s devastating policy of appeasement. Anthony Eden resigned his post as Foreign Minister because he could not in good conscience persist to serve that disastrous policy. The Labor Opposition troubled for a change in policy if not in government. The Department of State is not lawfully bound to follow the Foreign Office’s lead. If Cordell Hull and Franklin Roosevelt chose to tag on the British, it was their choice. Whatever Hull believed, Roosevelt believed the British were wrong. We cannot excuse him by blaming the British. In the second place, the isolationists’ role can be overstates or misunderstood. Yes, the isolationists called for the embargo. No, the isolationists did not demand that the embargo be maintained. Senator Nye, the most significant of the isolationists, introduced, on May 2, 1938, a decree to lift the embargo. He saw the consequences of the embargo and determined that it was intervention against the Republic and not impartiality at all. Charles Beard, another leader of isolationist opinion, cynically denounced the embargo as the overturn of neutrality. Edwin Borchard and William P. Lage, two scholarly advocates of neutrality, Neutrality for the United States, that the embargo was erroneous: â€Å"This was thought to be neutrality legislation. In fact, it was the specific opposite.† The embargo was a form of involvement against the recognized government of Spain. In short, the leaders of American isolationism changed their minds on the embargo. Had Roosevelt joined their effort to sway public opinion, had he used his office to urge repeal on Congress, had he dared–as Henry Stimson suggested–lifting the embargo as part of executive prudence, the leaders of isolationism would have rallied to his side? He ignored the prospect. Nye’s bill never left committee. (Akira Iriye, 1993) In international affairs the USA displays growing unilateralism. International development policies have been forced by the Washington consensus. The United States fails to sign on to major greening protocols. Until lately the USA was perennially in arrears in United Nations dues. On numerous occasions (such as Nicaragua and Panama) the USA has not followed international legal standards and it ignores the International Court if its decision goes against it. American policies put in to the enduring stalemate in the Middle East. Take any global problem and the United States is both the main player and major bottleneck. It is a rational question to ask whether this is just a matter of current US administrations or whether more reflective dynamics are at work. If we take seriously global problems and therefore also the requirement for global reform (such as the condition of global public goods and the regulation of international finance) and then turn to the question of political implementation we obviously arrive at the door of the United States. Progressive social forces and international institutions the world over make proposals for global reform, whose list is significant and growing, but without US cooperation they stand little prospect of being implemented. The world leader, then, turns out to be the global bottleneck and in this light American conditions and problems become world problems. The difficulties are to evade mistaking American ideologies for realities, to avoid the trap of impressionism based on unawareness when everyone thinks they ‘know’ the USA on account of its large cultural radius, and to be brief while the data are vast. The literature on ‘America’, the largest and foremost developed country, is vast and multimodal. This part of the treatment is meant as a prà ©cis planned in brief vignettes. The second part probes the international consequences of American exceptionalism. This is less widely talked about and tucked within specialist literatures on international relations and international political economy (including transnational enterprises, the Washington consensus and military affairs). Twinning the themes of American exceptionalism and global implications is the pioneering element in this inquiry. The terrain is large, the literatures are wide-ranging and so this treatment is pointed, focusing on American exceptionalism and global ramifications. The closing section criticizes American exceptionalism as a self caricature and considers potential counterpoints. (Gruber, L. 2000) The whole world must adopt the American system. The American system can endure in America only if it becomes a world system. Americans who wanted to bring the blessings of democracy, capitalism, and constancy to everyone meant just what they said – the whole world, in their view, must be a reflection of the United States. There is no contradiction that several features of American exceptionalism shape modern globalization; yet developing this argument entails several hurdles. First, intrinsic in the notion of ‘Americanization’ is an element of methodological populism. To which unit of analysis does this apply – to which America, whose America? The USA is the fourth largest country in the world in terms of population, quite varied, and local differences play a significant part. American corporations with decentralized headquarters and offshore tax reporting cannot be merely identified with the United States either. Besides, international flows do not run just one way but in multiple directions; there are also trends of Europeanization, Asianization and Latinization of America, economically and culturally (regarding foreign ownership, management style, consumption patterns). Transnational Diasporas have been changing the character of ‘America’ all along and this bricolage character is part of its make-up. What then is the actual unit at issue? Is it a set of ’organizing principles’ that remain incessant over time, as Lipset would have it, or, at another extreme, is America a site, a place of transnational synthesis and bricolage? Since waves and layers of Diasporas, from the Irish to the Latino, have been shaping ‘America’ it is not feasible simply to refer back to the founding fathers in order to identify American fundamentals. It would not be productive either to rework the dà ©fi Amà ©ricain type of argument; that would place the argument in a setting of national comparisons and competitiveness, à   la Michael Porter. This national focus is in part overtaken by the dynamics of stepped up globalization and is not appropriate to an analysis of the relationship between AE and globalization. (Duclos, D. 1998) A second problem is to put up historical variation in US politics, or the association between structure and politics. AE does not quite match the definite profile of US administrations and is not essentially intrinsic to American politics; to argue otherwise would be to essentialism American politics. Wilsonian internationalism was also element of US foreign policy and American contributions to world order comprise the establishment of the UN and Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, support for European union, and policies in favor of human rights and democracy. While these contributions are under disagreement they show that there is greater disparity to American foreign policy than just the profile of the past decades. As the emphasis here is on American policies in relation to modern globalization this serves as a note of caution. In the latter days of the Clinton administration there were several changes in the picture (mitigation of the embargo on Cuba, settlement of arrears in UN dues), some of which, such as US endorsement of the permanent International Criminal Court, were upturned by the next administration. In recent years much discussion on Americanization has focused on cultural dynamics, or what Nye calls ‘soft power’: the responsibility of media, popular culture and transnational consumerism, examined in cultural studies. It is also another type of populism for it is rarely effectively correlated with other dimensions of American influence: economic, financial, international and military. This lack of enunciation between soft and hard power is problematic. The question of AE and globalization differs from the conformist cultural imperialism thesis. Overall American impact is to a considerable extent a matter of what Galtung (1971) called ‘structural imperialism’: shaping other societies through structural leverage rather than just through direct political involvement. This includes but goes beyond popular culture, the cultural industries and the familiar litanies of Coca-colonization, McDonaldization, Disneyfication, Barbie culture and American media conglomerates. as these are high-visibility and receive irresistible attention, the more significant impact of AE perhaps concerns economic policies and international politics and security. These too are ‘cultural’, but covertly rather than obviously so and less visible in everyday life. They concern not just relations among advanced countries but relations across development ascents that affect the majority world. It may assist to differentiate several levels of analysis: Structural dynamics. This comprises scientific and technological changes forged by and exported from the USA. Eventually, however, these symbolize an inter-civilizational heritage. Fundamental dynamics which are universal to industrialized countries. Here the leading package offered by the country that founds these trends affects all; yet these dynamics are not essentially peculiar to that country. This brings us to the junction thesis of modernization theory according to which industrial societies would finally converge. In this category belong trends such as mass production, mass utilization, mass media, car culture, and suburbanization and information technology; that is, they are not ‘American’ per se but since the USA was the first comer they take an American gloss. American corporations and cultural industries request to draw monopoly rents from their provisional lead ‘by means fair or foul’. This is a general business practice with ample pattern in history. The British destroyed the Indian textile manufactures and trade and sabotaged incipient industrialization in Egypt, Persia and the Ottoman Empire. During international leverage (international financial institutions and the WTO) and regional arrangements the US government seeks to combine its lead and institutionalize the benefit of its multinational corporations. It follows that the center questions of global Americanization are the last two points: drawing monopoly rents and their institutionalization through superpower leverage. That the line between domestic and international politics is distorting is a familiar point in international relations literature. Often the importance falls on the international influencing the domestic. A major US export has been its brand of capitalism, as in Taylorism, Fordism, high mass-consumption, free trade, and American company and business practices. Another major policy take on by western countries is a â€Å"war on terrorism† that is not a foreign policy; it is an goal of a foreign policy. Western’s world way must reach beyond the curse of terrorism. We should offer an inclusive vision of hope and affluence for all nations, and thinking the interests of our friends and allies, as well as those peoples around the world who need to be our friends and share in our exposure. Beliefs, standards, values, and prospect are all part of a foreign policy, but they are not foreign policy. They are enriching blocks of foreign policy. It has become a maxim to state that September 11, 2001 â€Å"changed everything† as well as that â€Å"nothing will ever be the same again.† In fact, little has changed in the imperialist tendencies of American foreign policy since the founding of the United States of America in 1789. The war on terrorism possesses features that influence west to operate in direct confrontation of accepted norms of international law, and to overlook the deficiencies and the crimes of its cobelligerents. The new war is a messianic, apocalyptic struggle of blameless good against consummate evil. Its motivation is not the real world with its shades of gray (and indeed, relevant histories and grievances), but the type of struggles that used to play out in the cowboy movies. Little reveal is made of the fact that the primary enemy is religious, in fact intensely so at times to the point of prejudice, bigotry, and terror, and not atheist as the previous enemy was. There is no need to attempt to understand that this new enemy regards Israel as a state that practices state terrorism and that by supplying military and economic aid, Washington is an accomplice. Or to try to understand that this enemy believes that Washington should cut off this aid and declare war on state terrorists as well as private ones. Those on â€Å"our side† are seen as being good, or at least infinitely better than the enemy. It is a war of no negotiations with the enemy, no summit meetings, no compromise, and surely no need to modify policies to accommodate the feelings and the policies of the enemy, or examine any just accusations that the enemy might possibly have. The enemy’s soldiers will not be given prisoner of war status and will be tried in special military courts (New York Times, May 26, 2003). Similar to the enemies of the Cold War, the enemy in the new war is depicted as sinister, cunning and underhanded. This time—and it is no irrelevant difference—the enemy actually struck mainland west on September 11 and before, and is expected to strike again. The fear is that the enemy will develop and use weapons of mass destruction against us—nuclear weapons, or more probable, radiological dispersion devices, also called â€Å"dirty bombs† (conventional bombs to which radioactive material has been added). The result would be the spread of radioactivity over a large area. But we are advised that we must not panic. Just be careful and vigilant. This war too, America advises us openly and in advance, is a war of global proportions. It is an open-ended war with the world as its arena. The enemy assumes two general forms. One part is visible, above ground, represented by evil governments and reminiscent of the old Soviet bloc. So far only four of the enemy governments in the new war have been identified—the former governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and two remain â€Å"axis of evil† governments in Iran and North Korea. The other enemy component is invisible, consisting, we are told, of cells in some 50 or 60 typically unnamed countries. These are not the cells of the communist party, but the underground organizations of what Washington chooses to call â€Å"terrorists† (New York Times, October 24, 2002). Whatever its form, whether bearing the legality of government or existing underground, the enemy should be destroyed. To do this, we must sometimes act alone, unilaterally. Other times we can act with our allies. America attacked the Afghan government only three weeks after the 9/11 tragedy. It therefore demonstrated that it was determined to protect the nation against terrorism, â€Å"to fight the war against terrorism,† not only by police measures—interpreting the determination to protect the nation as actions taken on to constrain and apprehend criminals but also by actually waging war against governments (Douglas Kellner, 2003). This, despite the fact that former approach is recognized as the most promising way a government can use to guard its citizens against terrorism if that government is interested in peace. Such an approach entails the kind of police measures actually adopted by Washington and other governments such as anti-terrorist measures affecting airplanes and airports, as well as foreign policy measures such as pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia, and threatening to lessen aid to Israel. The use of war, however, increases the damage to the victim country and the innocent parties therein. This increases the moral quandary posed by just war theory, as well as increasing the hatred that can consequence against the perceived aggressor, as has been demonstrated in the recent war against Iraq (Frederick H. Gareau; 2004). Thus like the war on terrorism, non-proliferation leadership desires global cooperation and coalitions. The two might combine such as while states both proliferate and sponsor terrorism-but their intimidation, and the techniques for dealing with them, are varied. Proliferation is provoked by customary state interest’s geography and security and maybe not terror, and consequently might require a varied set of policy responses. The approaches to proliferation will diverge in Iraq, North Korea, and South Asia. The â€Å"war on terrorism† rubric offers neither explanation nor path concerning our non-proliferation policy options. That said, if a propagating state sponsors terrorism, or has relations with terrorists disparate to the United States, then these two areas of center converge. And our tools to agreement with both threats must be directly focused on those states (New York Times, December 10, 2002). It is unsure that we face a feasible intimidation of a large-scale nuclear harass from another main nuclear power. The further real threat is now the development and deliverability of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by terrorist associations and the states which support them. The Bush Administration has mapped a new path in association with Russia by moving to lessen nuclear munitions to usually low numbers and engaging former opponent on controlling the expand of nuclear technology. Nunn-Lugar non-proliferation programs have institutionalized a vital helpful association unswerving to the reduction and power of nuclear or double use materials. But we should be careful not to be lulled into a counterfeit sense of security with this new Russian-American agreement. The truth is that this new agreement – which represents progress – does not comprise the mainly dangerous nuclear threat that we still must deal with, and that is strategic nuclear weapons. Short-range nuclear missiles and bombs are left out of this agreement. Thus, The basic challenges for western countries foreign policy today are much as they have been in the past: to safe our interests and support our ideals in an deficient and precarious world. And to do it through leading coalitions of common interest. Reference: Akira Iriye, The Globalizlng Of America, 1913-1945, At 34-35 (1993) Andrà ©ani, G. (1999–2000), ‘The Disarray of US Non-proliferation Policy’, Survival 41(4): 42–61. Douglas Kellner, From 9/11 to Terror War: the Dangers of the Bush Legacy. Lanham. Rowman and Littlefield, 2003, p. 263. Duclos, D. (1998), The Werewolf Complex: America’s Fascination with Violence. Oxford: Berg. Erald A. Combs, American Diplomatic History: Two Centuries Of Changing Interpretations 56-61 (1983) Frederick H. Gareau; State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism, Clarity Press, 2004 Frederickson, Kari (2001), The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 19321968. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Friedman, T.L. (2000), The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Anchor Books, 2nd edn. Gruber, L. (2000), Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Guyatt, N. (2000), Another American Century? The United States and the World After 2000. London: Zed Books. Hallinan, J.T. (2001), Going Up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation. New York: Random House. Huntington, S.P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs 78(2): 35–49. Kaul, I., I. Grunberg and M.A. Stern (eds) (1999), Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Keohane, R.O., and H.V. Milner (eds) (1996), International and Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkendall, R.S. (1980), A Global Power: America since the Age of Roosevelt. New York: Knopf, 2nd edn. New York Times, May 26, 2003, p. A18 New York Times, October 24, 2002, p. A1 Walter Lafeber, The American Age: U.S. Foreign Policy At Home And Abroad, 1750 To The Present 614-18 (1994). Walter Lafeber, The American Search For Opportunity, 1865-1913, At 180 (1993) William G. Howell, Power Without Persuasion: The Politics Of Direct Presidential Action 24-54 (2003) William Stueck, Rethinking The Korean War: A New Diplomatic