Supplier Selection Process in the Aerospace Sector

Supplier Selection Process in the Aerospace Sector Executive Summary The ever increasing competition in global markets today has led businesses and companies to find different methods for reducing production and manufacturing costs in order to maintain their competitive edge. The competition has no longer remained company to company but has become supply chain to supply chain. From a buyers perspective a qualified supplier is a key factor to reduce costs. Thus supplier selection and evaluation has gained vital importance in the supply chain management environment. It is extremely essential to develop a supplier selection model which is efficient, effective and considers all the aspects required by the company. A number of supplier selection methods are available in the current literature. Creating a model based on these methods that addresses the particular requirements of the company is vital. The following paper is in 5 sections. The literature review in the first section is on the various methods for supplier selection and evaluation. The following methods are reviewed. Mathematical Programming Data Envelopment Analysis Analytical Hierarchy Process Analytical Neural Network Fuzzy Set theory Along with the review of the methods a discussion on the evolution of supplier selection criteria is also included in the first section. In the second section, two existing supplier selection models in the aerospace sector have been critically reviewed. The description of the Aerospace industry and comparison between the two models is included in the third section. To determine the essential criteria to be included in the model and prioritizing them, the research methodology used was a survey design. The results of the survey are included in the fourth section. The fifth section contains recommendations for building a new model for supplier selection in the aerospace sector. Introduction One of the major topics discussed in most of the production and operations management literature is supplier selection and performance evaluation of suppliers. It is one of the most critical activities of firms due to the increasing significance of the purchasing function (De Boer et al., 2001). The main objective of a supplier selection process is to maximize overall value to the purchaser, reduce the purchase risk and develop a close and long term relationship between the buyer and supplier. Supplier selection is a multi-criterion decision making problem and a number of conflicting factors affect its outcome. The factors taken into consideration are wide ranged and are both quantitative as well as qualitative (Ho et al., 2009). Operational research offers a range of methods and techniques in the form of models which can support the supplier selection decision making. A number of supplier selection methods have been proposed such as data envelopment analysis (DEA), analytic hierarch y process (AHP), mathematical programming, fuzzy set theory and vague set theory, multi attribute rating systems etc. A literature review of international journal articles discussing different multi-criteria supplier selection methods is carried out in this paper. The methods that are prevalently applied in practice, the priority of the evaluating criteria and evolution of selection criteria are also discussed and reviewed. The aim of this paper is to carry out a literature review of the various methods and criteria for supplier selection available in the current literature, in order to produce a set of recommendations for building a new model for the supplier selection process in the aerospace sector. To achieve this, two supplier selection models were critically reviewed, one of which is currently implemented in an aerospace industry and the other one is a theoretical model. A survey on global sourcing and supplier selection process containing 25 questions on various aspects of st rategic sourcing was also carried out in order to identify the different characteristics that influence sourcing decisions. Supplier selection methods: Supplier selection methods or techniques are the models which are used by decision makers to conduct the supplier selection process. They act as supporting tools for the selection process. The selection of an appropriate method is essential for the overall selection process and can significantly influence the outcome of the selection results (Li et al., 1997). There are number of supplier selection methods available in the literatures. Mathematical Programming (MP): MP allows the formulation of the decision problem in the form of a mathematical objective function which needs to be minimised or maximised depending on the objective function by varying the values of the variables. It is an optimization method which selects a number of suppliers in order to maximize either a single criteria or multi criteria objective function subjected to supplier or buyer constraints (DeBoer et al., 2001). Talluri and Narasimhan (2003) used mathematical programming in the form of a linear programming model to first minimise and then maximise the performance of the suppliers against the best target measures set by the buyers, thus providing a wide-ranging understanding of supplier performance. The authors applied this model considering a set of six suppliers to a Fortune 500 Pharmaceutical company in the process of implementing a JIT system. They regarded price, quality and delivery as the top three criteria for evaluating the suppliers. One of the key features of this max-min approach was that it could identify a set of suppliers with identical characteristics, thus providing the buyer with effective alternates to make their final decision. For the supplier selection problem Ng (2008) developed a weighted linear programming model with an objective function of maximizing supplier score. He implemented the model considering 18 suppliers to a manufacturing firm producing agriculture and c onstruction equipment. He included five criteria namely quality, supply variety, delivery, distance and price. In order to maximise the revenue function Hong et al. (2005) developed a mixed integer linear model to optimize the number of suppliers and order quantity. He applied the model to the supply chain of the agriculture industry in Korea as the customer demand varied seasonally over a period of time. Similarly OBrien et al. (2001) created a mixed integer non-linear model to optimize the allocation of products to suppliers thus minimizing the annual purchasing costs. Narasimhan et al. (2006) and Wadwa et al. (2007) constructed theoretical multi-objective programming models to optimize supplier selection and order quantity and to minimise lead time, price and number of rejects. Karpak et al. (1999) constructed a goal programming model and applied it to an international manufacturing firm to minimise costs and maximise quality and delivery reliability for selection of suppliers an d allocation of products between them. The authors considered cost, quality and delivery reliability as the criteria for supplier evaluation. On one hand Mathematical programming is advantageous as compared to the other approaches as it takes into account all the constraints during the formulation of the problem. Hence it is much easier to work when a large number of constraints are considered. It can also be used for multiple supplier selection as the current situation can be taken into account in an MP model. On the other hand some of the drawbacks of using an MP model are that it often only considers the more quantitative criteria neglecting the qualitative criteria which are important in supplier selection especially when the goal is to build supplier partnership. Most of the theoretical MP models are complicated to build for the supplier selection problem, due to the large number of variables, but as it can be seen from the above mentioned examples, they can be implemented in an industry as they can be simulated and solved by computers. They are not considered as the most effective method for vendor evaluation as they do not take into account qualitative factors and are incapable of performing a qualitative analysis which is an important aspect of the supplier selection process, thus limiting their use. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA): The concept of DEA is constructed on the basis of calculating the efficiency of the decision alternatives or suppliers. The DEA is a non-parametric method the measures the efficiency without specifying the form of the production function or the weights of different inputs and outputs. The efficiencies are evaluated on the basis of benefits as output and cost as the input criteria (DeBoer et al., 2001). The efficiency of a supplier can be defined as the ratio of the weighted sum of the suppliers outputs to the weighted sum of his inputs, thus the DEA method calculates the most favourable set of weights for each supplier alternative classifying them into efficient and inefficient suppliers. The favourable set of weights that are calculated maximise the supplier efficiency ratings without altering its own rating or making the other suppliers efficiency ratings more than one (DeBoer et al., 2001). In order to measure the efficiency of alternative suppliers Braglia and Petroni (2000) applied the DEA method by proposing nine evaluating factors to measure the supplier ratings. The authors applied their proposed methodology to the supplier selection process of a middle-sized company manufacturing bottling machinery to test its efficiency. They also calculated the Cross efficiencies in which the weights chosen for a particular supplier can be applied to the weights of the inputs and outputs of the other suppliers as well as Maverick index which is the percentage relative difference between cross efficiency and simple efficiency in order to avoid the selection of false positive supplier. Talluri and Barker (2002) and Talluri and Sarkis (2002) applied DEA to evaluate suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as a three phase approach for a logistics distribution network. They also employed the DEA to measure the performance of the suppliers using six evaluating factors having two inp uts and four outputs. Ross et al. (2006) evaluated the supplier performance with respect to the performance attributes of both buyer and supplier by using DEA. The author carried out three sensitivity analysis; the first one computed supplier efficiency scores without taking into account the evaluation teams and the buyers weights. The second analysis considered the evaluation taking into account the teams preferences and the third analysis considered the buyers preference. Liu et al. (2000) constructed a DEA model to evaluate the overall performance of a supplier considering three inputs namely price index, delivery performance and distance factor and two outputs which were supply variety and quality. The authors applied the DEA model to a firm manufacturing agriculture and construction equipment containing a multi modal assembly line. The model could select suppliers with a high supply variety, thus reducing the number of suppliers. Seydel et al. (2006) developed a DEA model to evaluate technology suppliers considering three factors. He included amount of know-how transfer as a qualitative factor in the model. The author developed a five point scale to rank the suppliers in term of the qualitative factor. The DEA method provides a means to evaluate and select suppliers on the basis of their performance over a period of time. It compares supplier performance in a multi criterion setting thus allowing the purchasing firm to evaluate each suppliers performance relative to the performance of the best supplier in the market by calculating the efficiency measures. Observed supplier performance data is used in a DEA method, thus the purchasing firm does not have to calculate its own utility functions as is required in the other techniques. Some of the limitations of the DEA approach are that its focus is not on selection an optimal supplier as the other mathematical programming models; hence it cannot be used if the purchasing firm requires the selection of an optimal supplier. The DEA model also makes some assumptions like any other supplier selection model thus limiting its use. (Garfamy et al., 2006) Evolution of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Linear Weighting Model: Weights are assigned to the criteria with the largest weight corresponding to the highest priority, in a linear weighted model. The ratings of the criteria are then multiplied with their respective weights and the sum of weights is assigned to each supplier, thus the supplier with the highest overall rating can be selected. There are a few imprecisions in the rating mechanism such as difficulty to determine the score of a supplier on a criterion or importance of some criterion with a high degree of precision. To overcome these imprecisions the use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was proposed (DeBoer et al., 2001). Analytic Hierarchy Process: The AHP is a decision making method first introduced by Saaty (1980) which prioritizes alternatives or suppliers when considering multiple criteria, thus allowing the decision maker to restructure complex problems in the form of a set of integrated levels or a hierarchy. It is one of the most commonly applied methods in practice as it incorporates qualitative as well as quantitative criteria and is relatively simple to understand. Various adaptations of AHP have been developed since its introduction. Muralidharan et al. (2002) developed an AHP model consisting of five stages to rate and select suppliers considering nine criteria. Some of the major criteria that the author considered were quality, delivery, price and technical ability. The model was then applied to the supplier selection process to evaluate six suppliers of a leading organization manufacturing bicycles. Liu and Hai (2005) created an AHP model and used Noguchis voting and ranking system thus allowing each manager to determine the order of criteria instead of weights for the selection and evaluation of suppliers. They used a six step process for supplier evaluation and considered eight criteria in their analysis, some of them being quality, responsiveness, delivery, technical capabilities etc. The authors applied this model for selecting one of ten suppliers for the Umbrella Scheme of Malaysias furniture industry. Chan and Chan (2004) constructed an AHP model considering six criteria namely cost, delivery, flexibility, innovation, quality and service with twenty sub-factors among them. They applied the model to the supplier selection process of a leading company that manufactures and supplies semiconductor assembly equipment assuming that the supplier had to be chosen for a critical product. The relative priority ratings were calculated based on customer or buyer requirements. Hou et al (2007) developed a decision support system based on AHP in a mass customization environment considering internal and external factors to meet market requirements. The author applied the model to the selection process of a subsidiary company of a local Chinese printer manufacturer. Chan (2003) created an AHP based interactive selection model which determined the relative importance of evaluating criteria without being subjected to human judgment. The AHP model can also be integrated with other supplier selection models in order to achieve optimized selection results. Ramanathan (2007) suggested that the qualitative and quantitative information gained from the total cost of ownership model and AHP model can be utilized to evaluate the performance of a supplier using the DEA method. The author considered the costs from total cost of ownership as inputs and the weights gained from the AHP method as outputs. Sevkle et al. (2007) applied the AHP-DEA integrated method to solve the supplier selection problem of a major Turkish TV manufacturer BEKO, in which he used AHP to derive local weights from a given comparison matrix and summed up the local weights to get the overall weights. In order to calculate the efficiency scores of all the suppliers DEA was used on the decision making units. Percin (2006) applied integrated AHP-GP method, where AHP was used to measure the priority weightings of alternate suppliers considering twenty evaluating factors. The author used the weightings obtained by AHP Goal programming method as the coefficients for five object ive functions. The integrated model was used to optimize the order quantity from the most appropriate supplier considering the capacities of the suppliers. Mendoza et al. (2008) offered an integrated AHP- GP model in order to reduce a large number of potential suppliers to a manageable figure. He ranked the alternatives considering five evaluating criteria to optimize the order quantity. Xia and Wu (2007) applied the AHP model to calculate the performance scores of potential suppliers. The authors then applied the scores as coefficients of one of the four objective functions in a multi-objective mixed integer programming model. The model was developed in order to determine the optimal number of suppliers and to select the best set of suppliers. Some of the advantages of AHP method are as follows (Chan et al., 2003) The system can be represented in a hierarchical manner to explain the changes in priority and its effect at upper and lower levels. The desired performance of the supplier is characterized by hierarchical selection criteria viz. the management of the suppliers is better if the suppliers performance is evident to the buyer. It utilizes multiple paired comparisons of criteria to rank order alternatives and it is the most exceptional Multi-criterion decision making approach. Efficiently progresses through modular construction and final assembly of modules than those assembled as a whole, this is known as hierarchical assembly of natural systems. Identifies the key elements assisting in making more accurate business decisions and is a structured method which obtains information from target respondents (decision makers or experts). It provides information regarding the structure and function of a system in the lower levels of the hierarchy and gives the outline of the criteria and their purposes in the upper levels. Limitations on the elements in a level are best denoted in the next higher level to ensure they are satisfied. It has stability and flexibility, stability as small changes have small effects and flexible in the sense that the performance is not hampered if there are any additions to a well structured hierarchy Disadvantages: (Chan et al., 2003) Most of the supplier selection problems do not have a single hierarchy. Utilization of this statistical method is complicated for most of the users and this makes the process unmanageable. It is not cost effective to procure the essential information i.e. due to lack of information /willingness to compare two alternatives with respect to some criterion the supposition of comparability is invalid. To reach an agreement with the team members by reviewing the models is time consuming. The presumption that the relative importance of criteria affects the suppliers performance is definite which cannot effectively take into account the risk and uncertainty in assessment of suppliers potential performance. Analytic network process (ANP): Sarkis and Talluri (2000) suggested the use of analytic network process, which was a more sophisticated version of the AHP method. The authors believed that the supplier evaluating factors could influence each other and this interdependency needed to be considered in the process. They applied the ANP process to evaluate and select suppliers in a company manufacturing custom-designed high technology metal-based products, considering organizational factors and strategic performance matrix. The model included seven evaluating criteria namely cost, quality, flexibility, delivery time etc. also considering their interdependencies. Bayazit (2006) implemented an ANP model considering ten evaluating criteria. Some of the important criteria included were on time delivery, quality, flexibility and delivery lead time. He classified the criteria into supplier performance and capabilities clusters and the interdependencies among them were formulated by considering each cluster as a controlling fa ctor for a pair wise comparison matrix. Demirtas and Ustun (2008) developed an integrated model in which they used ANP to evaluate the performance of potential suppliers considering 14 criteria. The weights were then considered in one of the three objective functions of a multi-objective mixed integer programming model. Similarly the authors integrated the ANP and the GP methods of supplier selection and evaluation in 2009. The only difference to the previous model was that there were four goals in the GP model. Gencer et al. (2007) developed ANP model considering various evaluating criteria. He classified them into three clusters to take into account their interrelationships to evaluate and select the most appropriate supplier. Some major advantages of ANP process over AHP are that ANP provides with additional insight as most of the real world supplier selection problems have interdependencies among the evaluating criteria. It also incorporates both qualitative as well as quantitative factors which are important in supplier selection. The ANP method can deal with various uncertainties and complexities as it makes use of ratio scales to incorporate a variety of interactions. In spite of the advantages, the ANP method does have a few limitations as it is a very complex method and requires additional effort and time as compared to AHP. Fuzzy Set Theory: The fuzzy set theory is used to model uncertainty and imprecision in the supplier selection situation. Fuzzy set systems make use of linguistic rules which are very well suited to describe the behavior of practical problems. In most of the real world applications, fuzzy rules are created by the decision makers with a few input variables. When the number of input variables increases, the possible number of fuzzy rules for a particular system increases exponentially. It is rather difficult for the decision maker to generate a complete set of rules to assess the supplier selection system (Chan et al., 2006). Chan et al. (2006) presented a hierarchy model based on the fuzzy set theory which could deal with both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The author used linguistic values to assess the ratings and the weights for the evaluation factors. The ratings were arranged in triangular fuzzy numbers. They created a hierarchical structure of the decision problem and applied the model to a high technology manufacturing company to select a suitable supplier to supply material for key components of a new product. Sarkar and Mohapatra (2006) used a fuzzy set method to eliminate the imprecision in a number of subjective characteristics of suppliers. The authors evaluated and selected the suppliers on the basis of performance and capabilities as the two major measures for evaluation. They considered a hypothetical case to exemplify their model by considering a pool of ten suppliers and the goal being to reduce that number and select the best two suppliers. Kahraman et al. (2003) applied the integrated fuzzy AHP approach to select the most appropriate supplier for the biggest white goods manufacture in Europe to supply the plastic part scroll housing for their new model of aspirators. In this model the decision makers could specify their preferences in terms of linguistic variables regarding the priority of each evaluating criteria. Chan and Kumar (2007) also applied a fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of suppliers. The authors used triangular fuzzy numbers and fuzzy synthetic extent analysis methods to choose the final priorities of different criteria. The authors applied the model to the supplier selection process of a manufacturing company to select the best global supplier for one of their critical parts used in the assembling process. The criteria considered in the model for evaluation were overall cost, quality of product, service performance, supplier profile and risk factors. Amid et al. (2006) formulated an integrated fuzzy multi-objective linear programming model which took into account the vagueness and imprecision of the input data in order to optimize the order quantity. The author developed an algorithm to solve the model which incorporated three objective functions with different weights. They considered a hypothetical case to select three suppliers for supplying a new product to a market. The purchasing criteria considered for the model were net price, quality, service and capacity. The author also formulated a fuzzy multi-objective mixed integer programming model which was similar to the earlier model but it also took into account the quantity discount. The price discount was directly proportional to the quantities ordered (Amid et al, 2006). One of the primary advantages of using fuzzy set theory for supplier selection is that it makes use of linguistic variables, which are highly beneficial when the performance values cannot be expresses in terms of means of the numerical values. Thus, taking into consideration the uncertainty and imprecision of the quantitative data gathered by the purchasing company or provided by the supplier. It is beneficial and easier to use linguistic variables instead of numerical values while assessing potential suppliers with respect to criteria and weights. A modified fuzzy set theory is capable of handling both qualitative as well as quantitative data ratings and is flexible in use, which is an added advantage (Chan et al, 2006). Some of the disadvantages of fuzzy set theory are that the analysis is based on the theory and not exploratory data; hence validation of the data may be required. It is a subjective methodology, thus justification for each step is necessary. As the number of variabl es increase the complexity increases, thus requiring a number of procedures in the sub-systems of the methodology. Other Methods: A number of other methodologies exist for the supplier selection problem such as artificial intelligence and expert systems which includes case based reasoning (Choy et al, 2005; 2002; Humphreys et al, 2003) and Bayesian belief networks (Kreng et al, 2003). Multi-criteria decision methods which include outranking methods (DeBoer et al, 1998; Dulmin et al, 2003), judgmental modeling (DaSilva et al., 2002; Naude and Lockett, 1993), interpretive structural modeling (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994) and categorical methods (Houshyar and Lyth, 1992). Multivariate statistical analysis that incorporates structural equation modeling (Lin et al., 2005; Tracey and Tan, 2001), Factor analysis (Krause et al., 2001; Tracey and Tan, 2001) and confidence interval approach (Muralidharan et al., 2001). Group decision methods (Han and Ahn, 2005; Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994) and multiple integrated methods also exist for supplier selection. All the methods that are utilized for selections of suppliers have their own advantages and disadvantages. No method can be said to be the perfect method which covers all aspects of the entire selection process. Modifications and improvements can be made to every method in according to the requirements of the decision makers. The selection process can be improved by integrating different techniques in order to negate the limitations of the techniques taken individually. Considering this procedure, the fuzzy integrated AHP model and the DEA integrated ANN model are comparatively the best combination of methods that can be implemented for supplier selection. Supplier Selection Criteria: Evolution of supplier selection criteria: A number of criteria need to be considered for the supplier selection decision making process which makes the selection of suppliers a complicated practice. Since the early 1960s, practitioners and academics have been focusing on the analysis of supplier selection criteria and measurement of supplier performance. Dickson et al, (1966) suggested From the purchasing literature is fairly easy to abstract a list of at least 50 distinct factors that are presented by various authors as being meaningful to consider in a vendor selection decisionÂ?. In his work he carried out a survey to identify the most important criteria required for the selection of suppliers. The author came up with 23 criteria and their relative importance for vendor selection. The following table summarizes the 23 criteria and their level of importance. Weber et al. (1991) conducted a similar study on the bases of the 23 criteria identified by Dickson (1966). The authors reviewed and classified 74 related articles appearing between 1966 and 1990. Their study provided a clear indication of the issues concerning selection of suppliers. Both the studies indicated net price, quality, delivery and production facility and capacity as the top 4 criteria for supplier evaluation. These two studies were the primary studies done on supplier selection criteria and were the bases of a number of papers in the forthcoming years. A number of changes at a profound level have taken place in the business environment, including purchasing and procurement since Weber et al.s work in 1991. The basic definitions of Dicksons 23 criteria have undergone change and expansion and new criteria have emerged due to a substantial growth in business and supply chain needs. Dickson (1966) defined net price as price offered by each vendor including discounts and freight charges. In the development of the net price criteria, the term net price had been replacement by the term cost which includes a number of costs such as fixed cost, inventory costs, ordering costs, supplier costs and costs associated with quality, after-sales and technology (Current and Weber, 1994). The term total cost of ownership has also become important in recent times which include not only the purchasing price but also purchasing related costs (Bhutta et al, 2002). The delivery criterion was defined by Dickson (1966) as the ability of each vendor to meet specified delivery schedules. The delivery criterion has now been developed to incorporate lead time, cycle time, shipment quantity and quality, delivery capacity etc (Karpak et al, 1999). According to Dickson quality was defined as the ability of each vendor to meet quality specifications consistently. The quality criterion has now been extended to include inspections and certain specifications such as the ISO9001 system (Lee et al, 2003) In addition to the evolution and development of the basic criteria a number of new criteria have emerged in literature from various authors. Some of the new criteria are flexibility, which includes process and production flexibility, response to change, responsiveness to customer needs (Ghodsypour et al, 2001), flexibility to change the order and order quantity and ability to respond to fluctuating demand (Verma et al, 1998). A product design and development criterion consists of commitment to continuous improvement, product development and improvement, design capabilities and continuous improvement in product and process (Chan et al, 2003). Supplier relationship is another criterion that has gained importance in recent years due to integration of various sections of supply chain. Supplier relationship has two aspects, strategic and tactical. The criterion can be sub divided into 4 sections namely strategic long term relationship, tactical long term relationship, strategic short term relationship and tactical short term relationship. Due to the growth in the businesses, buying firms prefer to integrate the suppliers in their supply chain, thus forming a strategic long term alliance with their supplier

Exit to Freedom by Calvin Johnson Essay example -- Calvin Johnson

During the summer of 1984, Calvin Johnson trudges knee deep through a swamp in the wetlands of South Georgia. As snakes brush past his legs, he marches in line with nine other men, each dressed in an orange jumpsuit, swinging a razor sharp bush axe in collective rhythm. His crew entered the swamp at dawn and they will not leave until dusk. Guards, armed with shotguns, and equally violent tempers, ignore the fact that the temperature has risen well above 100 degrees and push the men even harder. Suddenly, an orange blur falls to the ground and a prisoner from Wayne Correctional Institution lies face down in the swampy floor. As guards bark orders at the unconscious, dying man, Johnson realizes "the truth of the situation, and the force of injustice just incapacitates" him. It is then he decides he does not belong in the swamp. Calvin Johnson (along with co-writer Greg Hampikian) begins his memoir, Exit to Freedom (The University of Georgia Press; 2003), with this inhumane description of prison life. He finds himself in this situation one year after being wrongfully convicted of raping a woman in Clayton, GA. His story, the self proclaimed â€Å"only firsthand account of a wrongful conviction overturned by DNA evidence," soon leaves the swamp and takes the reader inside the prison itself. The â€Å"code of prison etiquette† is related through adages such as â€Å"never to get between fighting dogs† and â€Å"only dead men broke up fights, and only snitches talked to guards.† These jailhouse proverbs are backed up by anecdotes of brutal fights, broken prison rules, and punishments, such as a transgressor who is brutally stabbed in his sleep. Characters such as Lefty, a prisoner who signals a fight by removing his glass eye and placing it on the sink,... ...the reasoning behind it soon becomes apparent. As Johnson talks more and more about his gradual distancing from God, I realize that I am being set up for a miracle. I was a little taken back when I realized that the entire book is a Christian testimony, following the familiar pattern: man experiences trials, man denies God, man finds God. The focus on spirituality overshadows the cold case study and hard facts on DNA evidence that the reader expects. Even so, the sheer power of Johnson's story overcomes the narrative flaws and keeps the reader interested throughout. Plus, the sincerity of his Christian beliefs adds a completely different level to his compelling story. It becomes an account of a man, not just finding truth in the legal system, but also discovering a spiritual truth which guides him out of the darkness of captivity, freeing him mind, body, and soul.

Is Facebook Making Us Lonely Essay

In Stephen Marche’s article â€Å"Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?† (2013) Marche suggests that over time, loneliness is becoming more prominent in today’s society. Marche develops his claim by using many published research and scholarly articles. In order to make readers aware of this growing epidemic, Marche’s purpose is to show that by using Facebook people are becoming more isolated. The target audience for this article is Facebook users and people who are interested in joining. Although Marche argues that Facebook is making people lonely, Facebook doesn’t isolate people because of the many networking features such as sending messages and writing on walls. After reading Marche’s article, I was confused because I disagree with his opinion of Facebook. Marche suggests that Facebook is making people lonely, but I believe that Marche’s correlation between Facebook and loneliness is mere speculation. Marche begs the question â€Å"Does the internet make people lonely or are lonely people more attracted to the internet?† (278) I agree with the Australian study â€Å"Who Uses Facebook?† The study concludes, â€Å"People who have unhappy family relationships in the first place seek companionship through other means, including Facebook.† (279) Marche’s argument is weak because his lack of evidence, despite his research. Marche states â€Å"Facebook arrived in the middle of a dramatic increase in the quantity and intensity of human loneliness.† (275) This statement proves that Facebook is not the cause of the increase in loneliness. Some of Marche’s research disproves his correlation between Facebook and loneliness. Moira Burk (graduate student) conducted a study that does not support the assertion that Facebook creates loneliness. Burke concluded â€Å"People who experience loneliness on Facebook are lonely away from Facebook. Facebook is a platform for lonely skulking.† (280) Work Cited Marche Stephen. â€Å"Is Facebook Making Us Lonely.† Connections: Guide to First Year Writing Clayton State University. Mary Lamb. Southlake: Fountain Head Press. 2013. 273-284. Print

The Tragedy of the Vietnam War essays

The Tragedy of the Vietnam War essays The Vietnam War is considered by most to be a mistake for many reasons. Many victims emerged from the war and especially for the soldiers who participated in it, it was simply wrong. Many of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam entered Vietnam with unclear directives and returned from Vietnam transformed and displaced. Many individuals have chosen to express how the Vietnam War was a tragedy from many angles. Through books, images, and movies, the memories of Vietnam are filled with pain and regret. These expressions are beneficial because they create within us a sense of understanding for what is often termed indescribable. One of the most powerful tools for expression is writing. Tim O'Brien, author of the book, The Things They Carried, vividly recounts what Vietnam did to him and those with whom he served. His stories about the transformations he witnessed offer proof that the war was indeed a mistake. For example, he tells us about how Norman Bowker was a gentle person, but as a soldier, he carried with him the thumb of a dead Vietcong boy. Another example of how the war changed individuals is when Rat Kiley shot the baby buffalo. We are told that Kiley stroked the buffalo's nose and then shot at it repeatedly. He shot it in the knee, its back and legs; he shot off an ear. "It wasn't to kill; it was to hurt," O'Brien tells us. (O'Brien 78) Kiley was reacting to losing his best friend, Curt, who stepped on a land mine and died. In the unknown land of Vietnam, Kiley found no other way to express his feelings. We can understand the extreme pressure the soldier was under when O'Brien tells us that "Rat Kiley was crying. He tried to say something, but then cradled his rifle and went off by himself" (79). O'Brien is able capture moments of emotional collapse that result from extreme conditions. O'Brien writes of what he saw, "We had witnessed something essential, som...

John Paul Jones in the American Revolution

John Paul Jones in the American Revolution Scottish by birth, Commodore John Paul Jones became the new United States first naval hero during the  American Revolution (1775-1783). Beginning his career as a merchant sailor and, later, captain, he was forced to flee to the North American colonies after killing a member of his crew in self defense. In 1775, shortly after the war began, Jones was able to secure a commission as lieutenant in the fledgling Continental Navy. Taking part in its early campaigns, he excelled as a commerce raider when given independent commands. Given command of the sloop-of-war Ranger (18 guns) in 1777, Jones received the first foreign salute of the American flag and became the first Continental Navy officer to capture a British warship. In 1779, he repeated the feat when a squadron under his command captured HMS Serapis (44) and HMS Countess of Scarborough (22) at the Battle of Flamborough Head. With the end of the conflict, Jones later served as a rear admiral in the Imperial Russian Navy. Fast Facts: John Paul Jones Rank: Captain (US), Rear Admiral (Russia)Service: Continental Navy, Imperial Russian NavyBirth Name: John PaulBorn: July 6, 1747 at Kirkcudbright, ScotlandDied: July 18, 1792, Paris, FranceParents: John Paul, Sr. and Jean (McDuff) PaulConflicts: American RevolutionKnown For: Battle of Flamborough Head (1777) Early Life Born John Paul on July 6, 1747, at Kirkcudbright, Scotland, John Paul Jones was the son of a gardener. Going to sea at age 13, he first served aboard the merchant ship Friendship which operated out of Whitehaven. Progressing through the merchant ranks, he sailed on both trading vessels and slavers. A skilled sailor, he was made first mate of the slaver Two Friends in 1766. Though the slave trade was lucrative, Jones became disgusted with it and departed the vessel two years later. In 1768, while sailing as a mate aboard the brig John, Jones suddenly ascended to command after yellow fever killed the captain. Safely bringing the vessel back to port, the ships owners made him the permanent captain. In this role, Jones made several profitable voyages to the West Indies. Two years after taking command, Jones was forced to severely flog a disobedient sailor. His reputation suffered when the sailor died a few weeks later. Leaving John, Jones became captain of the London-based Betsey. While lying off Tobago in December 1773, trouble began with his crew and he was forced to kill one of them in self-defense. In the wake of this incident, he was advised to flee until an admiralty commission could be formed to hear his case. North America Traveling north to Fredericksburg, VA, Jones hoped to obtain aid from his brother who had settled in the area. Finding that his brother had died, he took over his affairs and estate. It was during this period that he added Jones to his name, possibly in an effort to distance himself from his past. Sources are unclear regarding his activities in Virginia, however it is known that he traveled to Philadelphia in the summer of 1775, to offer his services to the new Continental Navy after the start of the American Revolution. Endorsed by Richard Henry Lee, Jones was commissioned as the first lieutenant of the frigate Alfred (30) Continental Navy Fitting out in Philadelphia, Alfred was commanded by Commodore Esek Hopkins. On December 3, 1775, Jones became the first to hoist the US flag over an American warship. The following February, Alfred served as Hopkins flagship during the expedition against New Providence in the Bahamas. Landing marines on March 2, 1776, Hopkins force succeeded in capturing weapons and supplies which were badly needed by General George Washingtons army at Boston. Returning to New London, Jones was given command of the sloop Providence (12), with the temporary rank of captain, on May 10, 1776. While aboard Providence, Jones displayed his skill as a commerce raider capturing sixteen British ships during one six-week cruise and received his permanent promotion to captain. Arriving at Narragansett Bay on October 8, Hopkins appointed Jones to command Alfred. Through the fall, Jones cruised off Nova Scotia capturing several additional British vessels and securing winter uniforms and coal for the army. Putting into Boston on December 15, he began a major refit on the vessel. While in port, Jones, a poor politician, began feuding with Hopkins. As result, Jones was next assigned to command the new 18-gun sloop-of-war Ranger rather than one of the new frigates being built for the Continental Navy. Departing Portsmouth, NH on November 1, 1777, Jones was ordered to proceed to France to assist the American cause in any way possible. Arriving at Nantes on December 2, Jones met with Benjamin Franklin and informed the American commissioners of the victory at the Battle of Saratoga. On February 14, 1778, while in Quiberon Bay, Ranger received the first recognition of the American flag by a foreign government when it was saluted by the French fleet. Cruise of Ranger Sailing from Brest on April 11, Jones sought to bring the war home to the British people with the goal of forcing the Royal Navy to withdraw forces from American waters. Boldly sailing into the Irish Sea, he landed his men at Whitehaven on April 22 and spiked the guns in the towns fort as well as burned shipping in the harbor. Crossing Solway Firth, he landed at St. Marys Isle to kidnap the Earl of Selkirk whom he believed could be exchanged for American prisoners of war. Coming ashore, he found that the Earl was away. To placate the desires of his crew, he seized the familys set of silver plate. Crossing the Irish Sea, Ranger encountered the sloop-of-war HMS Drake (20) on April 24. Attacking, Ranger captured the ship after an hour-long battle. Drake became the first British warship to be captured by the Continental Navy. Returning to Brest, Jones was greeted as a hero. Promised a new, larger ship, Jones soon encountered problems with the American commissioners as well as the French admiralty. After some struggle, he obtained a former East Indiaman which he converted into a warship. Mounting 42 guns, Jones named the ship Bonhomme Richard in tribute to Benjamin Franklin. Battle of Flamborough Head Sailing on August 14, 1779, Jones commanded a five-ship squadron. Proceeding northwest, Jones moved up the west coast of Ireland and turned to circle the British Isles. While the squadron captured several merchant ships, Jones experienced persistent problems with insubordination from his captains. On September 23, Jones encountered a large British convoy off Flamborough Head escorted by HMS Serapis (44) and HMS Countess of Scarborough (22). Jones maneuvered Bonhomme Richard to engage Serapis while his other ships intercepted Countess of Scarborough. Though Bonhomme Richard was pounded by Serapis, Jones was able to close and lash the two ships together. In a prolonged and brutal fight, his men were able to overcome the British resistance and succeeded in capturing Serapis. It was during this fight that Jones reputedly replied to a British demand for surrender with Surrender? I have not yet begun to fight! As his men were achieving their victory, his consorts captured Countess of Scarborough. Turning for Texel, Jones was forced to abandon the battered Bonhomme Richard on September 25. America Again hailed as a hero in France, Jones was awarded the rank of Chevalier by King Louis XVI. On June 26, 1781, Jones was appointed to command America (74) which was then under construction at Portsmouth. Returning to America, Jones threw himself into the project. Much to his disappointment, the Continental Congress elected to give the ship to France in September 1782, to replace Magnifique which had run aground entering Boston harbor. Completing the ship, Jones turned it over to its new French officers. Foreign Service With the end of the war, Jones, like many Continental Navy officers, was discharged. Left idle, and feeling that he was not given enough credit for his actions during the war, Jones willingly accepted an offer to serve in the navy of Catherine the Great. Arriving in Russia in 1788, he served in that years campaign on the Black Sea under the name Pavel Dzhones. Though he fought well, he bickered with the other Russian officers and was soon politically outmaneuvered by them. Recalled to St. Petersburg, he was left without a command and soon departed for Paris. Returning to Paris in May 1790, he lived there in retirement, though he did make attempts to re-enter Russian service. He died alone on July 18, 1792. Buried in St. Louis Cemetery, Jones remains were returned to the United States in 1905. Carried aboard the armored cruiser USS Brooklyn, they were interred in an elaborate crypt within the United States Naval Academy Chapel at Annapolis, MD.

Poverty and Pollution in Japan, Europe and North America Research Paper - 1

Poverty and Pollution in Japan, Europe and North America - Research Paper Example Many Third World cities have significantly high concentrations of industries and the industrial output also forms a prominent part of the world’s industrial production. These Third world cities face equivalent environmental pollution. Over the years the industrial development in these cities or city-regions has progressed tremendously and the greater the industrial development, the bigger will be the magnitude of the environmental pollution faced by the inhabitants of the countries. An inter-relation of poverty and pollution will be highlighted through a case presentation and the ethical implications of the business owners towards the society, basic rights of the humans for a cleaner environment and the reasons for industrial development in Third World countries will be discussed in relation to the case study. Popularly referred as Brazil’s â€Å"valley of death†, this particular valley, Cubatao, is a home to 100,000 people, living amidst critical environmental circumstances. The valley can be considered as the most polluted place on Earth where the inhabitants are constantly faced with tons of pollutants discharged by the industrial plants each day. The air, in which the inhabitants breathe daily, is polluted with a plethora of toxins, predominantly benzene which is a known carcinogen. 13,000 urban residents suffer from respiratory disease and infant mortality rate is 10 percent higher as compared to the whole region. The residents are, however, completely aware of the circumstances and the poor health conditions of their children and families, but the industrial plants are a source of employment for them. Few wish to move out of the valley, but their financial status doesn’t allow them to do so. The circumstances in the valley of Brazil, pointing out that poor have t o face the price for industrial  development. They are faced with environmental hazards and they cannot even reach out for environmental protection due to their low economic conditions (Shaw 2011).  

Constitution The Mandate that Individuals buy Health Insurance Research Paper

Constitution The Mandate that Individuals buy Health Insurance - Research Paper Example s lacked the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty for the failure (Rourke, 2012, p.3). According to the proponents of the issue, the mandate modifies the internal Revenue Code and thus constitutes a tax. It, therefore, offers Americans a choice to either purchase health insurance cover or pay a tax equal to the cost of purchasing health insurance. However, people exempted from the tax include the poor, dependents, military personnel, citizens living overseas, or individuals with a religious objection (Bluestein, 2011, p.27). This subsidizes the government’s health care program hence making it cheaper both to the government and health insurance companies as well as to families wishing to buy a health insurance. However, the introduction of the penalty for those with no health care insurance is unconstitutional since it makes Americans pay taxes. The central issue relates to the Commerce Clause. Congress argues that the Commerce Clause empowers it to compel private citizens not currently involved in commercial activity, to buy insurance from private dealers or pay a penalty to the national government. However, the Congress has no powers through the Commerce Clause to enact laws imposing such penalty (The Editors, 2010, p. 2). By passing the individual mandate and penalty as components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010 (PPAA), Congress exceeded the powers granted by the constitution. This is because resolving such a suit remains the role of the federal courts as noted by O Conor in New York v United States (1992). This is the traditional and foundational function of the federal courts (Barnett, Stewart & Gaziano, 2009, p. 1). However, since no Congress has ever tried to apply the Commercial Clause in the issue of APPA casts great doubt as to whether Congress has the authority to do the same. The Supreme Court in Printz v United States (1997) noted the same; the reality