<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/">
  <channel>
    <title>DSpace Collection: Summer Research</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10288/584</link>
    <description>Summer research projects sponsored by the Charles Center at the College of William &amp; Mary</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li resource="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1536" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1535" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1523" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1498" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1496" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel>
  <textInput>
    <title>The Collection's search engine</title>
    <description>Search the Channel</description>
    <name>search</name>
    <link>http://dspace.swem.wm.edu/simple-search</link>
  </textInput>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1536">
    <title>The Role of Free Will in American Political Thought: A Case Study of Jefferson, Ideological Determinism, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1536</link>
    <description>Title: The Role of Free Will in American Political Thought: A Case Study of Jefferson, Ideological Determinism, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Lerner, Adam&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, the original bill for establishing religious freedom followed from an explicit denial of human free will over the content of one’s thoughts.  For the bill to pass, though, this clause had to be removed.  That the assemblymen chose to drop the anti-free will clause but retain the enacting freedom reflects a longstanding American tradition of ignoring metaphysical commitments by presupposing them.  Ironically, this tradition began with Jefferson himself who distanced himself from metaphysics while presupposing what I call “ideological determinism,” the belief that humans are not responsible for their thoughts. Rather than continuing in this tradition of maintaining a public “light-mindedness” concerning philosophical questions, as the late Richard Rorty suggests Americans should, I suggest that philosophical light-mindedness in practice often amounts to the inconsistent exploitation of the public’s presuppositions by power-hungry politicians.</description>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1535">
    <title>Advantages and Disadvantage of Switching from U.S.GAAP to IFSR</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1535</link>
    <description>Title: Advantages and Disadvantage of Switching from U.S.GAAP to IFSR&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Yoon, Nara&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: In today’s business, markets are demanding increasing conformity. Many countries have converted to and implemented the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)’s accounting standards. The United States, however, still maintains its own Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Both IASB and FASB have created International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S.GAAP) respectively. These accounting standards are rules of measurements for financial statements that companies issuing stock to the public must provide to stockholders (Libby, 21). There are various advantages and disadvantages of the U.S. companies changing their systems from U.S.GAAP to IFRS. The primary benefits U.S. hopes to get are comparability, cost savings, and the global accounting network. At a closer view, these assumed benefits are not nearly as influential as many people suggest.</description>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1523">
    <title>Religion and Economic Policy:  The Effects of Religious Rhetoric on Public Opinion</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1523</link>
    <description>Title: Religion and Economic Policy:  The Effects of Religious Rhetoric on Public Opinion&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Brenson, Kirstie&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: This experiment attempts to measure the level of impact of religious rhetoric and framing on public opinion regarding economic policy in the form of tax cuts.  Two versions of a survey with differing levels of religious rhetoric were distributed throughout the Chicagoland area for three days.  After analyzing the results, it was concluded that the level of religious rhetoric had little to no effect on public opinion.</description>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1498">
    <title>Lifting As We Climb- the St. Luke Hall Collection</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1498</link>
    <description>Title: Lifting As We Climb- the St. Luke Hall Collection&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Mayfield, Carolyn</description>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1496">
    <title>Summary of Dintersmith Fellowship Work</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1496</link>
    <description>Title: Summary of Dintersmith Fellowship Work&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: John, Gay&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: The is-ought distinction appears to hold, so science can't engage in direct research into morality (i.e. it can't make evaluative conclusions). However, the absence of valid is-ought inferences is so damaging to our moral intuitions that scientific research into why we have moral feelings becomes especially relevant.</description>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

