Brainstorm titles as a way to capture the direction and tone of your essay.
February 4, Wahl In a case called Chaplinsky v. In the concept paper, we outlined the importance of looking at "the changing nature of war. Within days, I received several kind notes from friends and acquaintances, informing me that to the classically-trained Clausewitzian there can be no such thing as the "changing nature of war," and urging the Future of War team to delete this phrase before anyone else noticed our terminological muddleheaded-ness.
But it was too late. Mewett takes the Future of War team to task for our lack of "careful attention to semantics": Mewett is far from alone in his insistence on the importance of these Clausewitzian distinctions. Should we have recognized that our reference to the "changing nature of war" would incite an immediate breach of the peace?
On the one hand: Mewett and others are quite right to call us out for rather slipshod use of terminology in the Future of War concept paper excerpts posted on Best Defense. The concept paper represented a preliminary effort to lay out a research agenda, not a polished final product; worse, it was more or less written by committeewhich is never a recipe for coherence or great prose despite heroic editing efforts by Peter Bergen and Tom Ricks.
We should have defined our terms with greater care.
Foreign language essay rubric the other hand: Mewett articulates the standard Clausewitzian understanding of war: It is, by nature, both violent and political.
Its violence is what distinguishes it from other forms of conflict and contestation games of chess, for instance, or economic competition between corporations or nations ; its political aims are what distinguish it from other forms of violence such as street muggings or boxing matches. Weapons, tactics, and so on will change over time.
Up to a point, this framework is helpful: If we want to theorize about war, as opposed to particular warswe need some coherent way to distinguish war from non-war. But does this require that we go a step further, and agree that the "nature of war" is eternal and unchanging?
Clausewitz himself seemed less sure about this than many of his followers: On this point, admits Colin Gray, "Clausewitz, for once, is less than crystal clear.
Regrettably, as Gray goes on to remind us, Clausewitz also wrote that "all wars are things of the same nature. Tell it to the numerous scholars, military strategists, and other commentators who speak — not at all metaphorically — of " cyberwar ," " financial war ," and so on.
Much of what is often spoken of under the "cyberwar" rubric is not violent in the Clausewitzian sense of the word.
Cyberattacks might shut down the New York Stock Exchange and cause untold financial damage, for instance, but would we say that this makes them violent?
Or, say cyberattacks shut down the electrical grid for several major cities, and as a result of the loss of power, a few hundred hospital patients on ventilators die.
Some argue that activities in cyberspace cannot truly be considered war unless they lead directly, rather than indirectly, to physical destruction or injury. So, if one believes it possible to speak of cyberwar or financial war, might one not argue that the "nature" of war is indeed changing?
The Clausewitzian could of course respond that this is simply a category mistake: Or maybe those who speak of cyber or financial war are just confusing "war" with "warfare": These possible responses strike me as too facile, however. The assumption here is that violence is and only is what Clausewitz deemed it to be: But violence, like war, is a term that derives its meaning from the broader social and linguistic framework in which it is embedded.
So too for the term "political," and, for that matter, for pretty much every other word and concept.
Most of us think of violence as the use of physical force to damage or injure for the purpose of inflicting suffering or asserting dominance. But there are many other ways to understand and define violence. Consider various forms of psychological torture or abuse.
Or consider cyberattacks that lead to loss of life as an indirect result of extended power outages: Why not view such attacks as a form of violence if they lead predictably to loss of life?
Or what about economic sanctions, for that matter:Foreign Language Assessment Rubrics (Interpersonal, Interpretive, Presentaional) Posted on January 22, | Leave a comment The ACTFL Proficiency Levels and Performance Descriptors provide a useful way of creating prompts and assessing student communication in the classroom.
The language level of the response is so low that it is difficult to derive meaning. 0 A response at this level merely copies sentences from the reading, rejects the topic or is otherwise not connected to the topic, is written in a foreign language, consists of keystroke characters, or is blank.
The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue.
Foreign Language Speaking Rubric; Letter/Number Grades This speaking rubric includes point for 5 categories (Task Completion, Comprehensibility, Pronunciation, Vocabulary, and Fluency). It also includes raw score to number and letter grade conversions and a student sheet for giving the grade.
The word rubric comes from the Latin word for red. The online Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the first meaning of rubric as "an authoritative rule" and the fourth meaning as "a guide listing specific criteria for grading or scoring academic papers, projects, or tests." How did the name for a color.
Vocabulary for TOEFL iBT - Free ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online for free.