What are the justifications for making the same-sex marriage legal in all states and Canada?

The marriage

Do you know how many nations there are in our planet? Do you know what our common characteristic is? All the people in the world have feelings. We all can feel happiness, tiredness, hurt and so on.  For that reason every population have created a constitution which support the equal human rights. What about the love? Many people think that love can exist only between man and woman, that it is the only one right way. But, imagine that your child is a lesbian or gay. Will you support him/her if you know that it is the only way to be happy in his/her life? May be the answer is yes. So the same-sex marriage should be legal. Our society can admit it and the reasons for it are many.

Firstly, as human beings we have an equal rights. Freedom means freedom for everyone. Thus people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. If they like somebody they should be able to be with him/her. If they want to be officially together in front of their relatives and in front of the country they should be free to do it. For example, a loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. It is why they are only objects according to law, not people who have rights and obligations. One of the most interesting questions is how should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans? Different countries, and even different states in a country, have different opinions. For example, according to a research made by Jones “the Canadian Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Charter of Rights, section 15, these laws were interpreted as allowing samesex couples to marry in the name of equality.”(Jones, 2007, p1)

Secondly, we should be tolerating with each other and not harming them. Since we were children, our parents and teachers from our schools had told us that we must respect other people and had been tolerant with them. For example, our mothers thought us to give our dolls or cars to other children to play with them, in the garden in front of a block. Or our teachers in first grades taught us to help our classmate no matter of his religion, color of skin, sex, etc. Moreover, in many constitutions it is written that we can do everything which not harm other people. For example, when we steal something we harm someone else. Let think a little bit about the case of same-sex marriage. The gay people are also people like heterosexuals, thus we should be tolerate with them and respect theirs` will. They will not harm us if they marriage but if we do not allow them to be with each other we will harm them. We will damage their lives. So, why we must be bad and create problems for them?

Thirdly, even the golden rule says to us that we must treat others in the way in which we want other treat us. However, many people firm that in different religion the same-sex marriage is said to be no right. But now is 21st century.  We pretend that our society is highly developed. Therefore, we should be able to interpretate better the rules in different religions and think about the common characteristics.  We can see that people in more developed countries started doing it. For example, Campbell and Monson (2008) stated it in their research:

While it is overly simplistic to attribute Bush’s victory entirely to his social conservatism generally, and his position on gay marriage specifically, there is nonetheless reason to think that gay marriage helped the Bush campaign mobilize two especially important constituencies—white evangelical Christians and Catholics. In states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot, more evangelicals and Catholics turned out to vote. (p399-419)

The golden rule is a rule which is typical for all religions in the world and it is also valid in business ethics. If we follow it we should put us in the situation of gays. We could imagine that our favorite person for who we will give everything and with whom we want to spend our life is from the same sex we are. Then we must think how we would feel in this position and the most important thing – how we would like other people threat us. Then we could decide how to treat gay and lesbians and is the same-sex marriage moral or wrong.

Fourthly, to be a gay or lesbian is something natural, it is even one of the main necessities in human`s life – the love. People need water and food in order to keep their lives. In the same way we also need love in order to be psychically live. We can choose the person with whom we will share our life but we cannot choose the person who we will love. To be homosexual or heterosexual is something which we cannot decide. For instance, in the same way we cannot decide what will be the color of our skin or the color of our hair. However, we all have the need to love and been loved. Thus we should fight for our right to survive and we should not been impressed to express freely our nature.

Furthermore, in the research of Halwani, Jaeger, et al.(2008), John Corvino has outlined five ways in which critics have frequently portrayed homosexuality as being unnatural:

The first portrayal (invoking statistical abnormality) does not seem

to capture what is immoral in an action. Many things we do fall outside

statistical norms, and yet we consider them to be ethically neutral if not

ethically valuable. In fact, great feats of accomplishment or altruism are

quite abnormal, and we praise them not only in spite of their abnormality

but because of their abnormality. The second portrayal (claiming that no

other animals practice homosexuality) is simply false: homosexuality

appears all across the animal kingdom. Furthermore, what do we gain from

looking at other animals? Complex rational function is not practiced by

other animals, and yet many of us think that there is some connection

between rationality and morality. The third portrayal (asserting that

homosexuality does not flow from innate desire) might also be false:

significant scientific data suggest that homosexuality is innate. Of course, the innateness of sexual desire cannot be what makes it permissible. After all, we consider many innate desires, like the disposition toward violence, to be impermissible. The portrayal of homosexuality as disgusting and repulsive is ethically unsound because, as I will show, it relies on a radically subjectivist position that cannot help but degrade into moral nihilism. This leaves the debate over the natural or principal purpose of sexuality as the only tenable argument, but one that is also doomed to fail, because it falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy (p.433-471).

Finally, we can see that homosexuality is something natural and we can understand that may be the same-sex marriage should be something normal, too.

On the other hand, there are many people who are against same-sex marriage because they are scared what will happen with gay and lesbian`s children, how it will influence them. People are just asking how will feel the children with gay parents, will they miss a mother or a father, what sex orientation they will have and many other questions of this type. Linde (2010) reports in her research that the same-sex marriage could limit children`s right to have both mother and father:

The well being of children of heterosexual unions is a key logic in rulings against samesex marriage in recent court cases in Washington, New York and the current court case over Proposition 8 in California. This paper will being with an examination of the historical development of children’s rights and welfare vis-à-vis their parents in the U.S. and in international law and how these arguments have been used to defend ‘traditional’ marriage. The paper will suggest that international law and institutions addressing children’s rights and welfare have created a globalized child, one that possesses the same needs and wants and requires identical rights. According to international laws and norms addressing children, all children under age 18 cannot be denied these rights regardless of gender, nationality, religion and other social markers that are employed to categorize children. This paper will argue that opposition to samesex marriage based on distinguishing rights for some children (those of heterosexual parents) as opposed to other children (those of queer unions) is ultimately unsustainable given the trends in children’s rights nationally and internationally in the last 60 years. (p.31)

In conclusion, there are different opinions about the same-sex marriage as well as there are various statements for and against it. Everybody has its own theories about what is right and what is wrong. As a whole we should tolerate other people`s opinions and in the case of the homosexual marriage we could accept it because if they marry they do not harm us. Moreover there are many orphan children who can receive better life with gay parents than fight to survive in live alone. If there is love which can spawn (born) a very good and happy family why we have to damage it and spread sadness in the world?


Jones, J. (2007). Common Constitutional Traditions and Same-Sex Marriage in the EU, USA, and Canada. Conference Papers — Law & Society, 1. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=76eb1cee-60e9-4e29-90c6-d319908a05ff%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=sih&AN=2

Halwani, R., Jaeger, G., Stramel, J., Nunan, R., Wilkerson, W., & Murphy, T. (2008). What is gay and lesbian philosophy? Methaphilosophy, 39(4), 433-471. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=107&sid=1ec1369f-0067-4959-853c-3bfb60167495%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3

Campbell, D., & Monson, Q. (2008). Religion card. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399-419. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=107&sid=1ec1369f-0067-4959-853c-3bfb60167495%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3

Linde, R. (2010). Lavender Diaper Babies: International Children’s Rights and the Battle over         Same-Sex Marriage. Conference Papers — International Studies Association, 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=107&sid=d6b103b2-87d8-4f0c-ac93-3b470fef929d%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=59232327

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Should the death penalty exists?

Death penalty Presentation

Do you know that during the 21st century in a Muslim country a woman was killed only because she was unfaithful to her husband?  She was being kicked and stones were thrown at her by a group of men until she died. Nothing could help her. Maybe there are many people who did different bad things, even killed, but nobody merits being killed no matter what he/she did.  There are a number of arguments against the death penalty which show that it is not right.                                                                             

     Firstly, innocent family and friends of criminals must also go to through hell in the time leading up to and during the execution. It is often very difficult for people to come to terms with the fact that their loved one could be guilty of a serious crime and no doubt even more difficult to come to terms with their death in this form.

Here we also can observe a qualitative interview method which was utilized by researchers from theRowan University and New Jersey University to gather data from 26 family members of death row inmates who are incarcerated along the East Coast of the United States:

The reactions of this group of family members are varied and  complex, yet they include the following common responses: social  isolation due to stigma and their own feelings of criminalization, intensified family conflict between family members who grieve differently from one another, diminished self-esteem, shame, diffused and specific feelings of guilt, and a chronic state of despair. This study explores virtually untapped terrain. (Jones, Sandra J., Beck Elizabeth, 2006/2007)

  Secondly, there is no such thing as a humane method of putting a person to death irrespective of what the state may claim. Every form of execution causes the prisoner suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others, but be in no doubt that being executed is a terrifying or deal for the criminal. What is also often overlooked is the mental suffering that the criminal suffers in the time leading up to the execution.  How would you feel knowing that you were going to die tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m.?

  Thirdly, a guilty person could be actually innocent and when this innocent person will be executed there will be no possible way of compensating him/her for this miscarriage of justice. There are also many researches which could shall us for such unjust convictions. One of them is the presentation in 2005 of National Innocence Network Conference inWashington,D.C.:

The Innocence Project and the larger wrongful convictions     movement have had great success focusing on the spectacular: factually innocent clients freed after DNA exclusions,16 junk science exposed,17 and individuals sent to death row through dubious eyewitness identifications.18 While these kinds of extraordinary vignettes will no doubt remain a calling card of the innocence movement, they ought not obscure the simple fact that most of the erroneous or unjust results that emerge from our criminal justice system are the consequence not of extraordinary events, but of the ordinary operation of a flawed system. (Andrew M. Siegel, 2005)

Moreover there is another significant but much less realised danger here. The person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased.

   Fourthly, every one has the right to be excused. Nobody has the right to define what is right and what is wrong and the most important thing is that no one has the right to take a life no matter whether he/she will just kills someone illegally or gives a legal death sentence. Additionally, why the government does not spend the money and efforts for the execution in better thing. For example, it can donate the money for children or other people with some healthy disabilities or something else. For instance, research made by Columbia Law School  reports that “Florida spent between $25 million to $50 million more per year on capital cases than it would have to if all murderers received life without parole.”(Jeffrey A. Fagan, Professor of Law & Public Health; Co-Director, Center for Crime, Community, and Law, 2006)

Do not you think that we must try to concentrate on doing good things for the society, not to waste time and money for sanctions which take people lives?

        On the other hand, there are many people who think that the death penalty is right. Some people can argue that murderers should be killed to pay for his crime. There is even a proverb, “Tit for tat,” which here means that the murderer must pay with his life. They believe that everybody has to receive a penalty no matter if he/she is sorry or not sorry.

    However, if they think rationally they will understand that in this way murderers will no pay for anything. If the murderer is put to death he/she will not bear the consequences of his/her actions.  He/she will also not be able to be sorry for it. Moreover in this way he/she could feel the victims suffering. Thus if he is put to death he will be not able to realize his faults and the penalty is without sense.

      In conclusion, the death penalty is an action which must not be practiced because it has many negative effects and not only the guilty person but the other people could suffer from it. It is an action which does not help people to realize their faults. If it is often practiced what will the world becomes?


      Jones, Sandra J., BeckElizabeth. (2006/2007). Disenfranchise.Grief and Nonfinite Loss as Experienced by the Families of  Death Row Inmates. Omega: Journal of Death & Dying; Vol 54Issue 4, p281-299, 19p, 1 Chart.

 Andrew M. Siegel. (fall 2005). The American Criminal Law Review. Journal ofChicago: Fall 2005. Vol. 42, Iss. 4; pg. 1219,19 pgs.

 Jeffrey A. Fagan, Professor of Law & Public Health; Co-Director, Center for Crime, Community, and Law.  (2006).Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs. Published by Columbia Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Financial crisis in USA and Canada – Reasons

Presentation2Financial crisis – causes

Map od financial crisis

There are many countries in our world. The USA is one of them, which is also one of the richest countries in our planet. But like everything else it can also collapse. Do you know that USA lost millions of dollars during the period of its financial crisis? Many banks collapsed and many big companies bankrupted. Many people lose their jobs, houses and cars. The reason for this event is not single and there are different opinions about the possible causes.

Firstly, the humans want more and more and sometimes do not think about the consequences. In this way people take credits in order to buy different things. This form one of the major factors for financial crisis in the USA – people take too big credits for houses. The research made by Obi, Choi, & Sil (2010) supports this statement trough showing and explaining different studies about financial crisis:

Virtually all the studies and commentaries on the financial crisis deal primarily with factors believed to have encouraged excessive household debt. In some cases, the arguments are quite declarative. For example, Taylor (2008) blames the abundance of credit as the chief cause of the crisis. He finds that the Federal Reserve’s unusually low interest rate policy in the late 1990s and 2000s was responsible for accelerating the housing boom and ultimately the collapse that followed (p.403).

The same research made by Obi, Choi, & Sil (2010)   also reports another supporting indicator for the problem with credits: “Two unusual market events occurred between 2000 and 2007, when home prices reached record highs. The first was that household debt grew twice as fast as personal disposable income.”(p.401). Furthermore, we can explain more deeply this citation through presenting a graph originally prepared by the specialists of Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Fig.1:  Total Household Debt Outstanding versus Disposable Income (billions $)

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (income); Federal Reserve Flow of Funds (household debt)

In this graph we observe that the disposable income was bigger than the household debts from 1980 to 2000. After that the household debts started increasing rapidly and in 2007 they became with 6% bigger than disposable income. This in an obvious reason for coming crisis.

Moreover, the government policies are in some level bad and banks do not protect themselves well – they do not think to whom they should lend money and to whom not. However, a research made by Gandel (2009) gives examples for a bank that started to create such a policy:

One of the firms leading the charge to capital-light banking was Bank of America. Starting in 1993, a predecessor firm became one of the first banks to develop and embrace computer models that were supposed to improve a bank’s ability to determine the risk of a particular type of loan. After a merger in 1998 that formed the bank, BofA officials often argued to investors and regulators that these new advanced risk controls meant the bank needed to carry less capital per loan. And BofA officials frequently fought regulations that would boost capital requirements for them and other banks. In 1998, BofA argued that tying capital requirements to credit ratings, which would have required banks to hold more funds in the vault to account for the riskiness of subprime loans, was silly.(para. 8)

Secondly, many people think that everything has its good and bad consequences and maybe it is true. Another reason for the financial crisis could be the economic growth and the rapid free market globalization. The same research of by Obi, Choi, & Sil (2010) reports:

Rogers (2008) takes a more macroeconomic view and blames the rapid development of free market globalization for the eventual economic recession that followed the financial crisis. He argues that globalization produced two conflicting results. The first, a benefit, is a boost in economic growth. The second, a detriment, is a deepening wealth-poverty gap. To combat the latter, the U.S. government encouraged subprime credit, which, although it was well intentioned, resulted in the transnational banking and economic crisis that followed (p.404).

Thirdly, sometimes government does things in order to help society but finally its policies harm people. For example, Government intends to fix the exchange rates for the improvement of international trade, for the development of investments and to gain credibility in licking inflation but it results in crisis. Why this happen? The research made by Barisik and Tay (2010) reports the Second-Generation Crisis Model which is also valid in some degree for the USA financial crisis:

Second-Generation Crisis Models: Defined by Obsfeld (1994) as self-fulfilling speculative attack model. The model is built on double equilibrium of fixed exchange rate and preference of high interest and unemployment. Economic units act according to the expectations. Government intends to fix the exchange rates for the improvement of international trade, for the development of investments and to gain credibility in licking inflation. Cost of exchange rate fixation is experiencing higher interest and unemployment. Later, these costs lead to disbelief of investors in exchange rate fixation . Government resumes fixed exchange rate as long as the benefits are more than the cost. However when the cost is more than the benefits, fixed exchange rate system collapses. According to second-generation models, a currency crisis occurs due to: 1) coherent self-fulfilling expectations, 2) rational herd behavior, and 3) contagion .

 Coherent self-fulfilling expectations depend on multiple equilibrium in the equations of exchange rate and monetary policy (as well as other policies) and various triggers that can range from political scandals to negative official statistical reports on the economic activities. Speculative behavior on foreign exchange markets, involving approximately the same number of optimistic and pessimistic participants regarding the exchange rate movements, may lead to stabilization of the exchange rate movements. However, if the number of pessimistic participants expecting a devaluation of the national currency prevails for any reason, they will cause devaluation by their actions in the market.

Herding models are based on the costs of gathering complete information for small investors; the majority of the market (composed of small investors) follows big participants in their investments (who are considered to be well informed, i.e. having a good reputation from the past) or a general market trend.

The occurrence of contagion is based on the perceived spread of a currency crisis to other countries in the region where it originally appeared, due mainly to regional trade and financial linkages or a regional approach of big investors/ big banks usually forming a joint regional securities portfolio for the emerging markets. That can be easily understood for countries that are regionally related commercially and financially; a currency crisis and worsening trends in fundamentals in one country definitely have an adverse effect on fundamental macroeconomic variables in another country, thus increasing the possibility of stirring up a currency crisis in that second country (p.405).

Furthermore, to protect us from the future crisis, there were invented some models. Such model is presented in the graph of Buggey (2007, summer):

This scheme shows us an attractive model of converting various forms of loans into tradable securities resulted in the creation of speculative bubbles, which overvalued various assets, in the first place real estate.

Fourthly, we can think about the crisis from the point of view of M. Boskin` perspectives on the elimination of U.S. banks’ toxic assets in order restore the credit market in 2009 in the country. The author asserts that the initiative of the federal government to buy toxic assets with the 700 billion U.S. dollars Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has resulted to capital infusions. He believes that these toxic assets were the reason behind the crisis in the credit market. Boskin reports:

The original idea for the U.S. government to buy up toxic assets with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program gave way to capital infusions (and auto bailouts). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s new publicprivate investment program to buy toxic assets has few takers, despite subsidized non-recourse financing. So the toxic assets remain on bank (and other) balance sheets. Can banks generate enough profits for long enough to buy time to write down smaller losses and raise private capital later in a stronger economy? Or are the losses so large—and in danger of mounting further as others (such as commercial real estate) are added—that a gradual workout is unlikely, if not impossible? Estimates of the losses on U.S. loans and securities range from under $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion. The International Monetary Fund puts them at $2.7 trillion, but the range of uncertainty is enormous. More than half is held by banks and broker-dealers. And analogous problems exist in Western Europe (for example, for loans to Eastern Europe) and Asia. Gradualism and profitability, and eventually U.S. Brady bonds, worked in the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s. But a difficult economy will drive down the value of toxic assets and make more assets toxic. For example, falling home prices put more families in negative equity—mortgages worth more than the home. This creates an incentive to default, which increases foreclosures and lowers the value of the mortgagebacked securities on financial firms’ books. Policymakers need a Plan B in the event that one proves necessary, modeled on America’s rapid resolution of insolvent savings and loans in the early 1990s, together with sales

of toxic assets in large blocks (to prevent so-called adverse selection from unraveling any bidding process). History is instructive. Of the $500 billion that America required for the Resolution Trust Corporation (equivalent to $1.25 trillion today), $400 billion was returned from asset sales, for a net cost of $100 billion, one-tenth the worst-case private forecasts of $1 trillion. The final tab on the toxic mortgage bailout and

other assets is likely to be a larger percentage of a larger, but still far less than the face value of the loans, because the underlying assets will in many cases retain considerable value. In addition to bailouts and toxic asset plans, governments worldwide want central banks to monitor macroeconomic and overall financial-sector risk (as opposed to focusing on individual firms). Barack Obama’s administration would anoint

the Fed, whose history has been to recognize crises late. The Bank of England seeks similar powers. The EU wants to establish a European Systemic Risk Board composed of the national central bank governors, chaired by the European Central Bank. What will these central bankers do to advise on macroprudential risk? Demand adjustments in large current-account imbalances? Call for reductions in taxes, spending, and government debt, which are the primary systemic risks? To do that

could jeopardize monetary policy independence and heighten the threat of future inflation. Dealing with financial institutions deemed too big to fail

won’t be easy. The current system, which allows privatized gains from highly leveraged risk-taking but socializes losses in the event of failure, must be changed to avoid episodic financial meltdowns. To balance the benefits of scale and scope with the socialized losses to taxpayers, firms deemed too big to fail should be required to have more capital, and the amount should rise disproportionately with size. Converting some portion of debt to equity under predetermined solvency-threatening conditions

would provide an extra layer of protection. Add a higher bar for government bailouts, and these stronger incentives would induce private financial institutions and investors to take responsibility before disaster strikes.(p.44-45)

Fifthly, everything in life is connected with something else. Everybody knows that if the weather is cold and his noise is running maybe he will have problems with his throat later. In the same way the companies and the business as a whole are connected with each other, too. A research made by Sloan and Burke (2008) explains the financial crisis through observing the connection between different institutions:

The fear-a justifiable one-is that if one big financial firm fails, it will lead to cascading failures throughout the world. Big firms are so interlinked with one another and with other market players that the failure of one large counterparty, as they’re called, can drag down counterparties all over the globe. And if the counterparties fail, it could drag down the counterparties’ counterparties, and so on. Meltdown City. In 1998 the Fed orchestrated a bailout of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund because it had $1.25 trillion in transactions with other institutions. These days that’s almost small beer, because Wall Street has created a parallel banking system in which hedge funds, investment banks, and other essentially unregulated entities took over much of what regulated commercial banks used to do. (para. 11)

On the other hand, there are some people who are very religious and most of them have no knowledge in the sphere of economics. Thus these people do not believe and do not accept all the previous factors for the crisis in America. The only thing in which they believe is that The God punished them for something through the financial crisis or He just put them under obstacle which they must take over.

In conclusion, there are many theories and opinions about the reasons for the financial crisis in the USA. Some people insist that it is a result of bank crisis, other think that it is part of the economic recession, other people say that it is because of the bad policies and unreasonable wanting of short-term profit, rather than aiming the long-run one, and so on. Everybody can accept whatever he/she wants. But the financial failure is fact, the economic theories, too. Therefore, it will be good if we learn from the possible mistakes we did and do not do them in the future in order to protect us from future crisis. Do you think that our society have lived enough failures to have the enough knowledge to protect itself?


Barisik, S., & Tay, A. (2010). An Analysis of Financial Crisis by Early Warning Systems Approach: the Case of Transition Economies and Emerging Markets (1994-2006 Period Panel Logit Model). International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(2), 405. Abstract retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/pqdweb?did=2168331091&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=8724&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Boskin, M. (2009). Time for Plan B?. International Economy, 23(3), “44-45”. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?sid=04b573a6-5006-47b9-97e7-e34e5cc751ee%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=44369871

Buggey, T. (2007, Summer). Storyboard for Ivan’s morning routine. Diagram. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(3), 151. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/imageQuickView?sid=d38bb837-4b78-41b4-aaeb-2ff685109252@sessionmgr104&vid=8&ui=12857906&id=54463024&parentui=54463024&tag=AN&db=bth

Gandel, S. (2009). America’s Broken Banks. Time International (South Pacific Edition), 173(5), para.8. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?sid=d38bb837-4b78-41b4-aaeb-2ff685109252%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=36532577

Obi, P., Choi, J., & Sil, S. (2010). A Look Back at the 2008 Financial Crisis: The  Disconnect between Credit and Market Risks*. Finance a Uver, 60(5), 401. Abstract retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/pqdweb?did=2301805461&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=8724&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Obi, P., Choi, J., & Sil, S. (2010). A Look Back at the 2008 Financial Crisis: The Disconnect between Credit and Market Risks*. Finance a Uver, 60(5), 403. Abstract retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/pqdweb?did=2301805461&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=8724&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Obi, P., Choi, J., & Sil, S. (2010). A Look Back at the 2008 Financial Crisis: The Disconnect between Credit and Market Risks*. Finance a Uver, 60(5), 404. Abstract retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/pqdweb?did=2301805461&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=8724&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Sloan, A., & Burke, D. (2008). On the Brink of DISASTER. (cover story). Fortune, 157(7), para.11. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?sid=743411ed-47dc-481a-8c4a-7f3e0d8a9f07%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=31694499

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

a Hello world!

Hello everybody!

My name is Darina Zvetanova. I am 18years old. I am studying in a joint program between University of Maryland and VUZF. I am sophomore in 4 years BS in finance. I will write some things in 2 topics: “Financial crisis in USA and Canada – reasons” and “Should the death penalty exists?”. I am interested in the first topic because I want to be a financist and I am interested in the second one because it observes the justice and human rights which is fundamental topic and i think that everybody must have opinion about it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment