Enforcing Strict Building Codes

Safety standards are vital when building individual homes. Maintenance of safety standard during home construction is important and people believe that the government should be responsible for enforcing strict building laws regulating the standards of building within the society. Alternatively, some people reason that the house owners and the people responsible for building the houses should be responsible for checking the safety measures while constructing various buildings.


In my opinion, there are governmental bodies, which are responsible for enforcing strict building codes to enable and enhance the safety measures for individuals within various construction sites. Since the real -estate is the fastest growing industry; the government should establish measures to define mechanisms controlling building quality (Van der Heijden, 2015).

Building regulations should strictly to be implemented by the government to enhance the construction of quality structures than the owners .The owners are after the booming business and are not minding the quality of the residences . The government should apply strict measures to reduce the poor standards of buildings to reduce death rates caused by constructing injuries.

The government should survey and evaluate every phase of construction from design to fitting electrical wiring and if the building is of substandard quality, the approval is withheld. Most governments of various developed and developing countries have initiated and improved construction strategies to reduce accidents at the construction sites before handing the houses to the owners.

Human safety is the most important idea while considering a working place making adapting most latest and complex safety measurements before or after production department needs immediate attention. The government should first regulate the number of the people accommodate in various buildings making sure the number does not exceed the required capacity (Durst, 2015). To maintain human safety measures, the government should engage the constructors to produce quality concrete structures to meet the environmental natural hazard to curb regular accidents. Human safety is very vital to maintain hospitality within the environment.

Argument for and against Zoos

There is a wide range of views regarding whether wild animals should be kept in zoos or not. By definition, a zoo implies an establishment in the form of a park or garden, holding a collection of wild animals. These animals are held for public display, study, or conservation. In relation to this, this paper analyses the argument for and against holding animals in zoos.


Arguments for Zoos

Zoos facilitate the protection of the endangered animals. The endangered species such as Rhinos and elephants are effectively protected in zoos from poachers and predators (CHAPTER 97: ZOOS & AQUARIUMS, 2013). By holding a collection of animals together, zoos facilitates public appreciation and education of the wild animals. Further, zoos create a conducive environment for animals themselves, where they are cared-for and have adequate space to live. Chalupova, Voracek, Smrcka & Kozakova (2014) asserts that in additional to serving for educational purpose, zoos serves as an entertainment place, where people enjoy seeing rare animals. Additionally, zoos facilitate the ethical practice of rehabilitating wildlife, particularly under the regulation of various standards such as Animal Welfare Act.

Argument against Zoos

According to Schäfer (2015), holding animals in a zoo is similar to holding the animal in captivity. The practice interferes with the freedom of the animal and leads the animals to suffer from confinement and stress. Zoos have a tradition of exploiting the animals. The breeding programmes maintained in zoos do not release the animals back to the wild. Rather, the offspring is maintained as part of the zoo, or traded among themselves (CHAPTER 97: ZOOS & AQUARIUMS, 2013). Those left in the wild are further endangered because it is more difficult to find mates.

Atomic bomb and domino theory

The ending of the Second World War was as a result of United States dropping atomic bombs on the two major Japanese cities Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Up to date, that is the only incidence where nuclear weapons were used in war. The decision regarding using the atomic bomb is still controversial. President Truman during that reign he faced a lot of difficulties.  The use of the atomic bombs was failure Japanese to surrender; therefore, United States was to do something devastating and fast (Wainstock, 2011).


The Soviet Union was not intimidated by the United States and thus, it became armed with nuclear weapons. This lead to cold war and nuclear arms race and there was tension between the Soviet Union and the United States. During this period, the concept of communism was also expanding and spreading. The communist at the long last founded Democratic Republic of Vietnam back in the year 1945. However, it took them 30 years so that they can gain control and access to the whole country (Poolos, 2008).

Historically when a country became boarded with a certain country under communism, there were high chances of the communism concept spreading to the country. Most people were concerned if Vietnam would become communist most of the countries neighboring would be totally threatened. President Eisenhower said that if Vietnam fell possibly, a long string of most countries would fall under it. These concepts become known as the domino theory (Marcinko & DeFelice, 2012).

This theory states that if one nation in a given region would come under the control of the communist, then the chance of another following was very high. This theory was used to justify the intervention of American in the civil wars concerning Vietnam and the Koreans that led to the maiming and killing million of civilians who were innocent (Marcinko & DeFelice, 2012).



The speedy industrialization during the 21st century caused in the startup of worldwide companies crossways the earth. The figures stated in September 2015 by the Financial Times states that ninety percent of high level positions are taken by males averagely in all corporations.  Though, I have faith that women should be equipped to take over this positions, I disprove that some ratio of uppermost level jobs to be kept for women.

Business meeting

Initially, a company can anticipate a tragic failure in case a few top level decision verves astray, particularly if the judgment involves a huge amount of money. For example, a finance firm by the name ABC established in Germany went insolvent in second quarter of 2014 due to a wrong decision by its leader, who was endorsed to that position based on reservation. Besides, the board of management need to examine the top positions with great care based on their advantages, regardless of gender. Hence, it is clear that the highest positions ought not to fall under the booking policy.
Moreover, ignoring an able person to occupy a new position points to discrimination and causes lack of enthusiasm among the employees. For instance, if a person is merely promoted to upper post, leaving behind the skilled colleagues, high chances are that the coworkers, who believe the decision is not just, won’t work efficiently to their ability. The result is loss in the productivity of the organization. Thus, the top positions should never be earmarked based on masculinity of femininity.
In conclusion, by investigating how arrangement can lead to deprived decisions as well as bring reduction in productivity, reservation shouldn’t be in place for top jobs. Governments should make certain that they give sufficient focus to enable women and head positions should be occupied based on merit regardless of anything else.

Retirement at 65

Retirement at 65 is essential because the person is cited to have served the government or rather an organization for a maximum of 47 years. That is a lot of time because one can start a company of his or her own and develop it to an international standard, if he or opted for otherwise. The person needs family interactions and maybe engaging in politics or other private affairs.

The word Retirement written on a sandy beach, with scuba mask, beach towel, starfish and flip flops (studio shot - warm color and directional light are intentional).

The government should therefore consider the welfare of retirees in case they reach their maximum age in service. The retiree has the right to adequate housing and sanitation as well as right to human dignity. Most of the retirees suffer evictions as a result of delayed retirement benefits or lack of regular basic income. There are widespread forced evictions of retirees that are occurring in the country coupled with a lack of adequate warning and compensation which are justified owners or the government itself.  Unfortunately there is an obvious lack of appropriate legislation to provide    guidelines on these notorious evictions to safeguard rights of these retirees.

47 years is a lot of time to have a retirement plan that will last you for the rest of your lifetime. Saving little by little will prove vital once you retire at age 65. It is advantageous to save during your time of service because the retirement savings are not deducted until they are distributed. This is good reason to invest in your employer’s account instead of investing in your personal account which may attract deductions even before they are deducted. Deductions are made through payroll and hence one cannot use the savings money for other uses at the end of the month or even year. The deducted amount can increase gradually as you save. The employer secures your money and once, by bad luck, the employee dies, then there are other beneficiaries and benevolent fund allocated for burial.

To add on, an employee has the advantage and opportunity to improve the financial security in retirement. Retirement at 65 is therefore essential with a well-planned retirement structure and also an assurance from the authority concerned.