African Politics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

African Politics - Essay Example Its aims were to create separate institutions, and to some extent separate homelands, for the black people who existed in white-dominated settlements in ancient America. Black separatists’ arguments were that the white people oppressed the blacks, and that it was impossible for the blacks to advance in any way when living in a white-dominated societies. The proponents of this movement pushed for segregation of black institutions such as business schools so that the blacks themselves would direct them (Selverstone 160). Concisely, the main objectives of this movement were to separate the black societies from the white to achieve means of making them independent and self-sufficient to survive in an environment that was hostile. One of the dominant black elites of this movement includes Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), and the Nation of Islam. Marcus Garvey, unlike other activists, did not advocate for segregation within white territories, rather, Garvey’s UNIA elite called on the black society to move from America and return to their â€Å"homeland† in Africa, Liberia to be specific (Lawler & Davenport 80-82). The second elite, Nation of Islam, was founded by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, and called for the establishment of new independent states for blacks only in the white territories. In addition, it provided economic, social, mental, and spiritual support for African Americans. According to its sympathizers, the black community would only foster if it had its own states with black schools, police, politicians, and businesses. This is an umbrella movement that housed other smaller social movements that aimed at ending discrimination, segregation by race, and enforces the voting rights of blacks living in the United States. This movement employed mostly campaigns of civil resistance, implementing civil disobedience and non-violent protests as tactics to create crises that would make the

Beauty Pageants May Not Be Safe Essay Example for Free

Beauty Pageants May Not Be Safe Essay While pageants are said to present a sense of self-esteem and value for the participants, these competitions often cause damaging emotional issues for an already trying adolescent life. One young participant anonymously said, I used to think I was pretty, but once I got on stage and didnt hear my name called the world came to an end and from then on, Ive called myself ugly everyday (Anonymous, 2010). When a girl feels as if she is being valued solely on her looks, she may change her personality and dietary habits to an unsafe level to continuously garner attention. The beauty pageant process is far from the safe harmonious competition it attempts to promote. As the rest of this essay suggest, damaging emotional scars often remain after the competitions are long gone, and pageants themselves harbor predatory dangers to young naive girls. The first kind of emotional damage young girls face is an overemphasis on physical appearance and a willingness to maintain beauty at any cost. When a female participates in a beauty pageant, she is taught to win by looking attractive. These young girls are conditioned to believe that the only way to look pretty is to starve themselves so that they can achieve a ‘perfect figure’. Although there are many different types of eating disorders in the world, the biggest one of all for beauty pageants is anorexia. Anorexia is the third most common chronic illness among adolescents (Mirasol). Outside of eating disorders, anxiety and stress are common for participants. In a 2009 interview on Good Morning America, Brooke Breedwell, a pageant queen at the age of five, now twenty, explained there was a price to pay, Pageants have put a lot of stress and anxiety on my life I feel the need to be perfect at everything, and I know thats not realistic. You cant be perfect at everything. Brooke Breedwell also claimed her mother â€Å"pushed her too hard. † When a mother enters her daughter in a pageant she expects her to win. Most girls receive the ‘no other girl is your friend here’ speech, which cause them to be untruthful by offering fake smiles and false hugs around other participants. It also creates a distant form of interaction causing the females to be shallow, hyper-competitive adults who are never satisfied. The second kind of emotional damage young girls face is an uncharacteristically elevated ego for a teenage or even pre-teenage girl. When a female wins a pageant, she may conclude that she is better than everyone all of her peers. While some might believe it to be healthy to compete in pageants because it creates confidence and it builds character, it’s not. Pageants teach young girls that self worth is in physical beauty only. Parents encourage their daughters to compete in these competitions and do whatever it takes to win. In some cases, mothers try to live vicariously through their daughter, by entering their daughter in such competitions. This confuses many girls because they don’t know if their mother is their coach or their parent. With young girls participating in televised beauty it is hard to keep pedophiles away. Some pedophiles are driven out to live their fantasies and with young girls on air exploiting themselves it’s easy too. When girls participate they put on clothing that is meant to look ‘sexy’ and ‘inviting’. Girls prance along a stage in alluring clothing welcoming anyone to watch. Girls in pageants have yet to develop their own sense of self and are conditioned to be more pleasing to adults for attention and rewards. An entire television show is dedicated to young girl’s beauty pageants. Each week, viewers are able to watch little girls dress up in bikinis, mini dresses, and other revealing clothing that their mothers choose for them to wear. In conclusion, beauty pageants cause self-hatred and uncertainty of a female’s own body, which could create shallow adults who are never satisfied. Carleton Kendrick, a family therapist says, â€Å"†¦the hard fact remains they are called beauty pageants and they have been and always will be based on using arbitrary standards of ‘beauty’ to make one contestant better than all the rest† (Kendrick). Beauty pageants can cause eating disorders and unrealistic expectations of a female’s own body. Beauty pageants can also cause a female to self-hate if she doesn’t win, or enlarge an ego to an unhealthy level. Unfortunately, if a child participates in beauty pageants that may air on television, anyone can watch including pedophiles. Females should love their own bodies and not care how others judge them upon their appearance.

catcher in the rye glass menagerie Essay -- essays research papers

The Catcher in the Rye and The Glass Menagerie The person someone becomes is influenced by the losses they have experienced in their life. In Catcher in the Rye the main character Holden Caulfield is devastated by the loss of his younger brother Allie to leukemia. The loss of Allie never leaves Holden’s mind. It changes his perception of the world. In The Glass Menagerie Amanda Wingfield’s husband abandons her and their two children Tom and Laura. For Amanda the only way to deal with the loss is to escape into a dream world. She forces this delusion onto Tom and Laura Loss of anything a loved one, a friend or a cherished possession can affect the way a person feels. Loss can change a person’s reactions or attitude toward something. This may cause the person to change the way they live their life or the decisions they make. Loss leaves an impression on a person.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Holden Caulfield is tormented by Allie’s death. The night Allie died Holden slept in the garage and broke all the windows with his fists. This was the only way Holden could deal with the loss of Allie. Allie becomes the model of the ideal person for Holden. Throughout Catcher in the Rye whenever Holden talks about Allie it’s what a great person he was. He describes Allie as extremely intelligent, someone you would have liked and as someone that never got angry. Everyone Holden meets or sees he compares them to this image of Allie but almost no one meets the standards. As Holden is eating breakfast in a diner he sees two nuns come in and helps them with their suitcases. He thinks nothing of them until he notices that their suitcases seem inexpensive. Holden talks about how he hates it when someone has cheap suitcases and how he can just get to hate someone for having them. Holden never gets over Allie’s death. It causes him to become restless. He is searching for something to replace the gap in his life that Allie left. He looked up to Allie. Whenever Holden finds something that can replace Allie he discovers flaws about it. Holden feels that if he finds something he is betraying Allie. He never truly finds something to fill the void. When Phoebe asks Holden to name something he likes a lot he can’t think of anything besides Allie. Phoebe says Allie doesn't really count because he’s dead. Holden argues â€Å"I can still like him, though, can’t I? Just because somebody’s dea... ...inessman. She blames her husband for her children’s bad qualities. When Tom stays out late or smokes Amanda says â€Å"you got it from you father†. Holden and Amanda were both traumatized by the loss they experienced. Holden’s view of the world changes because of Allie’s death. In Holden’s mind no one will ever live up to Allie. Holden can’t see good in the world anymore. There is something wrong with everything when matched up against Allie. Even though this is true Holden is on an endless quest to find something that can replace Allie. The loss of Allie causes Holden to feel only something negative can result from change. The loss of her husband throws Amanda into a fantasy world. She will not accept that she should be anything other than the southern lady she was brought up to be, that Laura is peculiar or that Tom is not a budding businessman, and that she herself might be in some ways responsible for the sorrows and flaws of her children. Loss affects people in different ways. It can tear them apart or make them stronger. For both Holden and Amanda loss forces them to struggle with their emotions in an attempt to find ways of dealing with the loss.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  

Debunking the Democratic Peace Theory Essay

The development of the democratic peace theory started with the writings of has its roots in the writings of German Philosopher Immanuel Kant. In 1795 Kant went talked about â€Å"perpetual peace based partially upon states sharing ‘republican constitutions.’† He then said, â€Å"that a republican form of government, exemplifying the rule of law, provides a feasible basis for states to overcome structural anarchy and to secure peaceful relations among themselves.† Kant continues to argue that â€Å"once the aggressive interests of absolute monarchists are tamed and once the habit of respect for individual rights is engrained by republican governments, wars would appear as the disaster to people’s warfare,† rather than an instrument for growing a state, as it was used for many centuries. This was the true beginning of what we now know to be the Democratic Peace Theory. This theory remained dormant in the minds of realists and neo-realists that strongly influenced the field of international relations for centuries leading into the Cold War. In 1972, American sociologist Dean Babst published an article in which he reported â€Å"no wars have been fought between independent nations with elective governments between 1789 and 1941.† This enlightened the worlds of political science and international relations and ever since studies have followed this theory, constantly supporting it and positive relationships between democracies. Expanding on Kant’s original idea of democratic peace, political science professor Bruce Russett a very hot topic, exclaiming, â€Å"democracies had rarely if ever gone to war with each other† as a fact. With this simple statement, Russett made political scientists either accept or oppose the democratic peace theory and countless attempts to support each point of view with historical evidence. Democratic peace theorists have long asserted that all democracies are not only more peaceful than other governments, but are prone to fight against countries ran by other forms of government when they are engaged in war. These theorists and political science buffs argue that democratic peace is supported by a long history of peace and civility between democracies versus military action elsewhere. However, the democratic peace theory is problematic because it prematurely takes a stance on the grounds that a correlation between democratic status and incidence of war is proof of an ally relationship between nations opposed to a statistical anomaly. Does a historical anomaly excuse the desire for mutual democratic passivity? Ph.D. Sebastian Rosato of the University of Chicago argues, â€Å"Democracies do not reliably externalize their domestic norms of conflict resolution and do not trust or respect one another when their interests clash.† Rosato makes a very accurate observation , democracies tend to be rather secretive or even circumvent surrounding conflict resolution particularly with other democracies. Having a democratic government does not assure universal peace, and different forms of democracy assure disputes and clashes between governments between exceedingly democratic societies. In reality, some of the most thorough liberal democratic end up in war with non-democratic nations, justifying combat with the claim of spreading democracy. Though economic interests are typically apparent and the underlying motive for warfare, media throughout democratic countries end up not only tolerating, but also accepting and normalizing war as if it was a trending topic that came and went. Representative democratic systems lead to monolithic party structures that initiate war and still get elected to new terms and positions in government. Advocates of the democratic peace theory often fail to discuss colonial wars and civil wars, as they do not support the theory and its ultimate goal of widespread peace. The histories of many democratic countries have proven to not hold up with the democratic peace theory. Democratic countries have repeatedly fought colonial and civil wars which critics show to make the democratic peace theory false. Political Scientists Ravlo, Gleditcsch, and Dorussen expand upon the colonial war aspect of opposing the Democratic Peace Theory in â€Å"Colonial War and the Democratic Peace† in 2003’s The Journal of Conflict Resolution. They elaborate on reasons suggested to explain why colonial wars do not invalidate the democratic peace argument, saying, â€Å"First, although democracies rarely, if ever, fight one another, they participate in war as much as non-democracies. Thus, mixed political dyads have the greatest propensity for war. Second, the nature of colonial conflict has changed over time. Finally, a correct assessment of the democratic peace argument needs to rely on a multivariate model.† The trio makes great points regarding colonial wars and how they work against the democratic peace theory. Regarding the first point, if non-state rivals were perceived to be nondemocratic, democratic states would regularly engage in colonial wars. Also, the nature of colonial conflict has indeed changed over time, and the relationship between democracy and colonial war is tested in imperialist, colonial, and postcolonial eras. With appropriate control variables in place, it is apparent that the positive relationship between democracy and war begins to vanish. History also shows us that in the post-World War II period, democracies begin to fight colonial far less than non-democracy states. There are various reasons why this occurred other than a simple theory that universal democracy equals world peace without question. Primarily this may have occurred due to changes in the views non-European peoples, typically in non-democracies outside of the primarily Caucasian western world. Legendary Political Scientist and Nobel Peace Prize Nominee stresses, â€Å"It is primarily democracies that h ave made colonial conquests and fought wars to prevent the liberation of colonies,† and, â€Å"Preferring to deal only with â€Å"coherent,† â€Å"mature,† and â€Å"stable† democracies, when these varying regimes prevent coherence, maturity, and stability abroad, is clearly ethnocentric.† Excluding the civil and colonial war histories form democratic governments from the study and validation of the democratic peace theory not only makes the affirmative point of view on the theory inaccurate, but also does come off very ethnocentric. In short, civil and colonial wars expose some of the bloodiest and most dysfunctional, corrupt eras in the governments of democracies around the globe. In the published piece, â€Å"Democracies are Their Own Enemies,† Political Science Professor Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn claims, â€Å"In watching the events throughout the world over the past few weeks, one is struck by how profoundly challenged democracy has become. In the United States, Great Britain, and even Israel, fundamental democratic values appear to be undermined by the political behavior of elected leaders. All of this is occurring at a time when the West is trying to sell democracy to the world.† While America is being criticized for starting war through attempting to sp read democracy with clear economic motives, Israel is realizing the extent of its social and economic disparities as a few rich families have their hands in much of the government, and The United Kingdom is seeing regular revolts and terror attacks in its economic centers. Democracies are becoming their own enemy in promoting a democratic government, and showing how they react when under social and economic pressure. Democratic nations rarely engage in wars of aggression against other democratic nations, absent substantial provocation or dire necessity. Nations tend to go to war mainly based upon: Expansion of territory or ideals, defense and pre-emptive strike upon a threatening nation, or conflicts of interest that are inexplicable through diplomacy. These other vital conflicts are worth further consideration. Two democracies could still find themselves inexplicable conflicts of interest. If both two democracies required resources in a border region to prevent their economic turmoil, economies from collapsing, and there wasn’t enough resource in that border region to share between the two of them, that just may force them against each other. Under conditions when democracies are in competition under the pressure of economy, the democratic peac e theory supplies no explanation for why widespread democracy would work equally peacefully for all nations. Democratic Peace Theory harps on the idea that democratic nation-states won’t go to war because its citizens would vote against heads of government for re-election for putting the nation in conflict. No one likes the idea of war despite whatever government they live under, or the idea of family members being sent off for extended periods of time without a promise of returning. According to Dr. Hebert West, â€Å"correlation does not equate to causation is one of the first and foremost rules of the social sciences, and causality requires several alternative explanations to be proven wrong.† The fact that the correlation between democracy and war does not equate to causation proves that though correlation between democracy and peace is strong by many accounts, sufficient evidence to prove that a causal relationship exists in the desired direction by democratic peace theorists, without the influence of other variables, has yet to be published. This disproves a key part of the democratic peace theory: that the need for the face of government discourages igniting war. The field of International Relations has always debated when and why democracies would go to war with one another. Debaters disagree that liberal ideas in democracies help them avoid war. The over legitimacy of empirical evidence typically used to defend democratic peace also comes under fire in most political fields. Using historical evidence to prove that widespread democracy bring world peace is a very far fetched comment without examining all the details that make it possible for democracies to engage in war internationally with having the action always take place within the non-democratic state. The theory has been difficult to prove empirically, which is why it remains a theory. While the idea of democratic peace is enticing, it does not allow for the error that occurs even when international democracy is accomplished. When looking at the face of historical circumstance the democratic peace theory may appear to be true. However, when one uses this historical anomaly as a predictive tool for future behavior of states seems ill-informed when no one field of politics can agree on one side of the argument, or give solid evidence that democratic peace would be successful even if applied. The longevity of democratic peace is strongly unlikely as no two democracies have ever been the same. Difference in ideals encourages nations to force their form of democracy on other countries. Democratic peace theory takes advantage of circumstance. This debunks the idea that if all nations were liberal democracies, there would be no war because no two democracies are the same and the urge to spread one nation’s ideals will always cause conflict. A strong example of a democracy that helps break down the democratic peace theory is South Africa. On April 26, 1994, South Africans of all heritages voted like never before to mark the symbolic end of apartheid and the beginning of South Africa’s rough transition to democracy. In nearly two decades, South Africa has achieved greater political stability and greater economic freedom and growth, lowering public debt. While major political parties hold on to democratic ways, more South Africans now receive education and have access to electricity and clean water. However, South Africa still has major challenges ahead such as extremely high HIV/AIDS rates and government corruption. South Africa is a democracy in that it is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. South Africa is rather peaceful with its neighboring countries (Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique and Namibia), bei ng that the last official war South Africa has engaged in was the Boer War (1899-1902). The war was supposedly based on British expansion with â€Å"an underlying cause being the presence in the Transvaal territory of the largest gold-mining complex in the world, beyond direct British control.† This sounds familiar, that the United Kingdom, a democracy, would kill and pillage for economic, monetary benefit. South Africa is a perfect example of why universal democracy would not manifest into long-term world peace. South Africa is a representative democracy; in that it’s current government is a variety of democracy, opposed to direct democracy. South Africa’s Legislative Branch consists of the National Council of Provinces where there are 90 seats are occupied by 10 members elected by each of the nine provincial legislatures for five-year terms, and the National Assembly where 400 seats are occupied by members elected by popular vote under a system of proportional representation to serve five-year terms. South Africa also has a common judiciary system where The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the power to protect and regulate their own processes, and to develop the common law. However, South Africa’s executive branch is unique In that the people to not vote directly for their president, Jacob Zuma, instead South African citizens only have the power to elect members of the National assembly, which in turn ends up choosing the next president for the country. In a world where the democratic peace theory is put into action, South Africa’s different way of running a government while still under the title of democracy would certainly clash with democracies of the western world. The People’s Republic of China is a huge world player and has seen an incredible economic boom since the 1990’s. China’s Legislative Branch has a National People’s Congress where the level of Congress directly below them indirectly chooses them. The Judicial court has a typical high court and smaller courts. However the executive branch is run by Communist Party of China (CPC), â€Å"whose power is enshrined China’s constitution.† Local politicians are voted for but a hierarchical electoral college chooses higher officials and the president, Hu Jintao, a position that was officially created in China’s 1982 constitution. Though China’s Communist Party has modernized its authoritarianism to fit the times, it is still certainly an authoritarian government. As a communist country that runs on a social organization characterized by submission to authority and its administration, which is, compared to the size of the country, concentrated in a small group of politicians. China isn’t engaged in war, and hasn’t been since the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. Also China still owns Tibet after invading the territory in 1950. Given this information, China maintains relationships with many of it’s neighbors so that the two nations never reach the point of war, but cannot be classified as non-violent wit neighboring countries Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam. The Islam Republic of Afghanistan is made of one of the world’s oldest nations. Afghanistan is certainly a totalitarian country, being that the Islam Republic of Afghanistan is a political where the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. Afghanistan’s judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Appeal Courts. The legislative branch consists of a National Assembly, which consists of an upper and lower house. The executive branch, however, is run by the president, which is voted in by the public through a run off majority vote. President Hamid Karzai is the head of the executive branch, serving as the head of state and the Command-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is currently in a war with the United States. In fact, the War in Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001, as the armed forces of the United States, the Kingdom, France, Australia, and the Afghan United Front launched Operation Enduring Freedom following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. America has tried to introduce democracy to Afghanistan while fighting the war on their land and killing their citizens, a common action of democracies around the world. Hence, Afghanistan is currently not in good peaceful with its neighbors, which include Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Indubitably, the democratic peace theory is simply just that, a theory. It is doubtful that democracies are less violent that other countries, despite not having militarized disputes with other democracies. With that in mind, the tendency for democracies to attack fledgling democracies has shown to stand out among the observed pattern that democracies do not fight with each other if the hegemonic or economic or hegemonic benefits are high enough. This debunks the claim that democracy determines the level of peace between any given states. Perhaps relationships between democracies are simply just a facade and raise the question of alternative explanations, such as a spurious relationship. Political Science Professor Erik Gartzke proposes that, â€Å"it is capitalism, and not democracy, that is the independent variable which causes peace and war.† Despite the validity of this claim, one would doubt that the state of international war and affairs would depend upon one single variable regardless. It is much more likely that a combination of variables between nations, under specific conditions, creates one of countless outcomes necessary for the potential for war. The spread of democracy is relatively new compared to other widespread forms of government and statehood, providing far too few examples to weigh its statements on. Works Cited â€Å"British Military & Criminal History in the period 1900 to 1999.† Stephen’s Study Room. http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/boer_war.htm (accessed November 29, 2012). Chan, Steve. In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1997): 59-91. Chan, Steve. â€Å"In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise.† Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1997): p. 60 â€Å"CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.† People. English.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html (accessed November 20, 2012). Dorussen, Han, Nils Peter Gleditsch, and Hilde Ravlo. â€Å"Colonial War and the Democratic Peace.† The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 47, no. No. 4 (2003): 520-548. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3176207 (accessed November 20, 2012). Doyle, Michael W. â€Å"Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.† Debating the Democratic Peace. Eds. Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996, p.24 Gartzke, Erik A. â€Å"Erik A. Gartzke, Associate Professor, University of California, San Diego.† UCSD. Haas, Michael. 1995. â€Å"When Democracies Fight One Another, Just What is the Punishment for Disobeying the Law?† Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, Chicago. 7. Haas, Michael. 1995. â€Å"When Democracies Fight One Another, Just What is the Punishment for Disobeying the Law?† Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, Chicago. 14. Khan, Dr. Gilbert. â€Å"Democracies are Their Own Worst Enemies.† The New Jersey Jewish News, August 17, 2011. http://www.njjewishnews.com/ (accessed November 20, 2012). Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993: p. 4 Sebastian Rosato (2003). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review, 97, pp 585-602. West, Dr. Herbert. â€Å"The History of ‘Correlation Does Not Imply Causation’ .†Slashdot. October 3, 2012. http://news.silobreaker.com/the-history-of-correlation-does-not-imply-causation. (Accessed November 20, 2012).

Friction and Shoe Slide

|Name: Brennan Gedney |Date: November 16, 2011 | Graded Assignment Lab Report Answer the questions, using complete sentences. When you have finished, submit this assignment to your teacher by the due date for full credit. (9 points) |Score | | | 1. In Part 1, did the force of friction on the shoe depend on the weight of the shoe? If the two are related, why are they? What does the slope of the line on the graph of force of friction vs. eight represent? Explain using your data. Answer: The frictional force did depend on the weight of the shoe. The more mass a shoe had, the large frictional force was required. The more weight a shoe has, the more gravity pulls on the shoe. This means that there is a larger normal force, which multiplied by the same coefficient of friction gives a larger frictional force. The slope of the line of friction vs. weight represents the rate at which the frictional force increases due to weight. (8 points) |Score | | | 2. Does an athletic shoe work better on a basketball court than a dress or dance shoe? Why or why not? Explain using data from Parts 1 and 2. Answer: An athletic shoe does not work better than a dress shoe on a basketball court. Athletic shoes have more grip than dress shoes, and thus require more force to move. Based on my data, the dress shoe requires less applied force to move than an athletic shoe. (8 points) |Score | | | 3. If you wanted the athletic shoe to slide faster on a surface, what might you do to the shoe? Provide at least two ways to make the shoe slide faster, and explain in terms of the force of friction and the coefficient of friction. Answer: To make a shoe slide faster, you might decrease the weight of the shoe. This would decrease the normal force, and thus the force of friction, allowing the shoe to slide faster. Another way to slide the shoe faster would be to slide it down an inclined plane. This would decrease the coefficient of static friction because the angle used in  µs = tan ? would be smaller. |Your Score |___ of 25 |