Defining my Leadership Direction (Three leadership goals) Essay

Defining my Leadership Direction (Three leadership goals) - Essay Example My perspective as a leader borrows from my short stints of work experience, and has intellect from emerging topics such how to cope with emotional intelligence, to lead virtual teams, and even open up innovations. That is the leader I see myself as informed through Daft in his leadership experience. In my leadership path, I am proud of what I believe in and endeavor to seize opportunities (Daft & Lane, 2008). My personal leadership goals in architect engineering include increasing influence and leading others, increasing my knowledge, and improving my skills and interpersonal skills. A good leader never stops learning hence increasing my knowledge in architect engineering traces back to my experiences. I have gained my experience through community service, architect engineering, financial services and business, and administrative assistant position (Daft & Lane, 2008). All these are avenues where I have taken to known the sort of leader I can be. The path of experience has helped in identifying the areas I want to improve on, such as acquisition of specific skill set or my personal innate abilities. These have contributed into being a well-rounded and valuable leader. It is very important to learn from the past and harnessing all the knowledge and experience for my successful future. I never stop learning, which means I am always excited for every task and opportunity. I believe that optimistic is one of the most important aspect for work and for my life in general. Therefore, every valuable contribution and effective work I do needs to start from inside me at t he first place. According to Daft, attending to industry relevant experiences like my time in Mabnya for Contracting is my path to acquiring effective competence (Daft & Lane, 2008). I have also found myself attached to other valuable activities all in the pursuit to improve my knowledge as a goal in leadership role. For example, I have had a hand in business process analysis and reporting, work time

Othello Race Journal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Othello Race Journal - Essay Example This can be seen in the language which is used to describe the character. For instance, throughout the play he is refereed to as â€Å"this Moor†, â€Å"the thick lips†, or more pejorative as â€Å"Barbary horse†, and â€Å"Devil†. ("Elizabethan Thater: Skakespeare in Context" ) Moreover, characters in the play are more prone to believe that Desdemona was poisoned or somehow bewitched and in this way, forced to love Othello than to believe that their relationships are natural. â€Å"Did you by forced courses subdue and poison this young maids affections?† ("Elizabethan Thater: Skakespeare in Context") Obviously, race becomes the crucial feature that sets him apart. Throughout the play, the attitudes towards Othello are much influenced by that fact that he is racially different from the majority in the society. The following creates the tension between the characters and drives the development of the conflict. As a whole, the play reflects the existing at those time anxieties and prejudices relating to interracial marriages and the belief in the white superiority that define the place of Othello among others. In this context, Othello fulfill the role of an outsider in the society which is guided by racial stereotypes and

The euro star Essay Example for Free

The euro star Essay The euro star is more than suitable for those with disabilities the Eurostar is Dedicated to providing the highest level of service for all its passengers, the Eurostar terminals at London St Pancras International, Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International, as well as the passenger trains themselves are specially equipped for those who may require additional facilities or services. So to conclude for the Eurostar I would recommend to Parents with children to choose this option over others, however if the customers need a car while in Paris then I would choose a different option, although as the Paris station is in the middle of Disneyland Paris the need for a car isnt likely unless the hotel they are staying in is outside the Disneyland Paris area. Wheelchairs There are 2 designated areas on the train, each for one wheelchair user and companion in Leisure Select (first class), coaches 9 10. They offer the wheelchair user the option to stay in their wheelchair if they wish and must be -8- used if passengers are unable to walk at least 200m unaided. Call for aid buttons are also fitted. Please note that the designated wheelchair spaces are for passengers that have their own wheelchair. A special fare is available for both wheelchair user and companion, please enquire at the time of booking. Special Assistance Special assistance is no longer bookable in advance. Assistance is arranged in person on the day of departure at the assistance desk and is subject to availability. If the passenger thinks they might need help getting to or from the train, they would need to arrive as early as they can (preferably at least 1 hour prior to departure). Guide Dogs Guide dogs are accepted on board, however please note under no other circumstances may animals travel on Eurostar. Disabled toilets with call for aid buttons are available at the departure lounges at London St Pancras, Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International stations and also on the trains themselves in First Class Leisure Select Coaches 9 and 10. And an extra note for the disabled passengers Eurostar Door Widths: Toilet 522mm/Exit Door 850mm/Disabled Toilet 7200mm -9- Euro tunnel Eurotunnel is the company responsible for building the twin railway tunnels under the English Channel linking Britain and France at Folkestone, in Kent and Coquelles, in the Nord Pas-de-Calais. Eurotunnel runs its own shuttle service that carries passengers and their vehicles between Folkestone and Calais. Eurotunnel also charges other rail operators, like Eurostar, to use the Channel Tunnel or Chunnel as we often call it. Eurotunnel operates a fleet of 25 shuttle trains to transport cars, coaches and trucks and their drivers and passengers. Trains run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are 3 trains an hour between 06:00-00:00, and 2 trains an hour between midnight and 06:00. The shuttle has now been in operation for over 12 years and since its first commercial services 177 million people have travelled through the Channel Tunnel thats 3 times the population of both France and England! Eurotunnel shuttle timetable Eurotunnel runs 34 shuttle services a day, 7 days a week, both from Calais to Folkestone, and from Folkestone to Calais. Generally, there are 2 services an hour between 06:00-23:00, 1 service an hour between 23:00-01:00 and about 1 service every 2 hours between 01:00-06:00. -10- Journey time between Folkestone and Calais is 35 minutes between 06:00-23:00 and about 45 minutes between 23:00-06:00. The Passengers need to check in at least 30 minutes before your shuttles due departure time. Eurotunnel have a good record for on time departures. Disch:1 Above is where Eurotunnel crosses the English Channel. Eurotunnel is a great way to take your car on holiday with, and as you can see it has great road links to all other parts of Britain. -11- Eurotunnel shuttle fares Eurotunnel has a number of fare options. Prices within one ticket option can vary quite a bit depending on a number of factors, such as how long you book in advance, what type of vehicle youre taking and how long youre staying. Standard car fare The average standard fare for a car up to 1. 85 meters high is i 49-i 75 one way. Note that standard fares are significantly more expensive if booked at short notice. The price includes the car and all its passengers. The number of passengers can be any number up to the maximum the car can legally carry. Motorcycles: fares are around Registered guide dogs travel free So this could be the ideal way to travel for anyone with difficulties with their sight, also this could be ideal for people travelling on big trips, such as school trips as the Eurotunnel has sufficient facilities to take coaches on, and as part of primary research I have actually been on a coach in the Eurotunnel and I thought it was a good way to travel and was easy and quick. Although its not as direct as the Eurostar, as the customer will have to drive from Calais to Disneyland Paris but it is made easy to get to Disneyland Paris as the passenger can take their car with them, as well as there being taxis available form Calais. The picture above shows the different leaving points in the south coast of England, to the different locations in France in which you can travel to. The most probable route for passengers from Maldon would be Dover to Calais. -13- http://www. seafrance. com/cs/Satellite/uk/ferry-dover-calais/itinerary-to-dover? packedargs=site%3DSF_Pax_Uk the purple route is the best route, for travellers from Maldon, from Maldon to Dover, the travellers can either go by car or get a taxi there, but obviously you can take your car on the ferry or, like the Eurotunnel, if the travellers are on a coach trip the ferry is accessible for coaches so the ferry could be perfect for school trips, and what separates a ferry from the Eurotunnel is that the passengers can walk around on board and visit restaurants, shops, bars, and arcades. There is also chilled out areas with comfortable seating, so for passengers travelling on business, can chill with a drink and if wanted can get on with some work in a calm environment. If the Traveller chose to use Sea France, and are driving a vehicle When they arrive at the port of Dover, theyll need to go through immigration and customs so this emphasizes the safety of the ferry. Then they just need to simply follow the signs to the Sea France check-in booths where a member of the Sea France team will process their booking and give them a lane number. Go to the car lanes and wait until youre invited to come aboard. Once onboard, the Sea France team will direct you on the car deck. Also when parking their car, they will reminded to make sure to leave the handbrake on. They will also be reminded to bring everything they want for the journey with them to the passenger areas, because access to the car decks is not permitted during the crossing. If theyre travelling with a pet then Sea France might be the company to use for crossing however it will need to stay in the vehicle during the crossing. It is also easy to make a note of where your car is parked, so the travelers can find it easily when its time to disembark. Passengers travelling by bicycle will also be able to travel by Sea France but will need to walk their bike up the ramp on to the ship. And For their safety, please be careful when leaving your cycle on the car decks and follow the crews instructions. For those passengers with sight difficulties then they could choose Sea France as If youll be accompanied by a guide dog or assistance dog they are welcome to come aboard with you free of charge. So to conclude the ferry would be good again for school trips, and possibly parents with children as the children will have enough stuff to do on the ferry to keep them preoccupied. Also this is the luxury option for those who need a car, bus or bicycle in France to travel around, as you can obviously take your vehicle with you.

The Political Philosophy Of Deception Philosophy Essay

The Political Philosophy Of Deception Philosophy Essay Deception is a part of our everyday lives, it is a part of who we are. What differentiates each and every one of us is the degree of deception that we incorporate in to our lives. Hence, how we look at and interpret deception, and thus, the truth, depends on our perspective, our moral grounding, our exposure and experiences in the wider world- beyond our immediate circle of life. This essay will attempt to find a general definition for deception that will agree with most, and will explore how deception is present in our lives and how that affects the amount of deception involved in politics. It will argue that deception is necessary in politics, and sometimes beneficial (and sometimes not), and this is because we as the general public allows it so. Drawing from the Machiavelli and Strauss schools of thought on how deception is an integral part of politics- and examining this claim through the case studies of the Vietnam and Iraq wars- this essay will conclude that the reason politici ans use deception is because it is sometimes more desirable than the absolute truth and also because it is easier to exploit and appeal towards the human conditions deep inclination towards self-deceit. Lies and deception often used interchangeably however, there is a difference. Citing Mahon (2008), Arico Fallis (2013) states that in order to lie one must say something that they believe is false. Deception engages people in a more deeper extent with the intention overriding the face-worth of a lie; Lies are a form of fabrication, where false information is created and presented as true whereas deception, especially in politics, is more motivated to manipulate, where information which is technically true is being presented out of context in order to create a false implication (Caddell, 2004). According to Caddell (2004) deception depends on two criteria: first, it is intentional; and, second, it is designed to gain an advantage for the practitioner. To understand why and how deception is involved in politics warrants a deeper analysis into the people involved and thus a look into understanding human behaviour and reasoning associated with deception. In the most basic sense, politicians and those who are engaged in the governing processes of our everyday life are only distinguishable from the general public because of the authority we as the general public grant them. Therefore they are also susceptible to the behavioural and cognitive aspects of an ordinary human being. With studies that propose and adopt the notion of self-deceit thus also applies to politicians, so as this essay will argue, will inherently translate into their decisions and actions and thus it is no surprise that politics, as with all other parts of life, would involve deception; therefore, deception is s present and necessary in politics. Self-deception also has many definitions offered its way, and as with the definitions for lies and deception, it will identify with everyone in varying levels- because individuals tend to treat their personal values as a kind of ideal point (Cowen, 2005). He defines it as individual behaviour that disregards, throws out, or reinterprets freely available information; people keep, absorb, and magnify the information that puts their values and affiliations in a favourable light and disregard the rest. Beahrs (1996) adds that deception of others is often accompanied by deception of self and vice versa. This leads to what Williams (1996) calls collective self-deception where the status of politics as represented in the media is ambiguous between entertainment and the transmission of discoverable truth. There are many ways deception is used in politics, and for many reasons. In politics, deception as the term will be used in this essay, could be used as a diversionary tactic, as a means to retain a favourable public relations image, a strategy to handle a difficult and sensitive situation or as the version that is linked to Platonic Noble Lies, used to protect society, a little sacrifice, in order to achieve the greater good (Jacobsen, 2008). Deception in politics and especially foreign affairs, usually involve decisions that are made in the spirit that they are acceptable or excusable because it is done in service of the national interest (Jacobsen, 2008). Therefore according to Beahrs (1996) deceit is probably required for a politician to achieve political success, because we as the people are so engulfed with expectation that it is inevitable and that if it is done in good faith there can be no harsh consequences, so it is easier to handle and deal with. There are many arguments on whether or not deception in politics, in government- essentially as an institution that holds the peoples trust (Williams, 1996) is acceptable. The idealists make a moral and ethical case, where deception, according to an absolute set of standards, is absolutely improper and inappropriate, but according to realists, and dependent on a cost-benefit analysis, the use of deception depends on how good it will achieve and whether it is consistent with protecting national interests and values (Caddell, 2004). Politicians need the people support; and in a liberal democracy one cannot coerce it or expect it as a gift, so they need to put on a persona that is of acceptable standards to others and this leads to deception that builds on (Sofier, 1999). Machiavelli and Strauss: A Look at Modern Day Politics Politicians have less incentive to be absolutely truthful and tend to deceive because they are in office only for a number of years and hence their accountability is limited (Davis Ferrantino, 1996). And politicians know this; according to ex-Australian Senator Graham Richardson, whether one tells the truth is not what really matters, but whether one gets the job done- and in that respect, one simply has to do whatever it takes, and if that involves an element of deceit or misdirection, then so be it (Malpas, 2008). Politicians tend to distract people from the negativity that is involved in everyday political decision making and focus on tunnelling public emotion toward achieving their goals by appealing to their sense of nationalism and personal preferences/group and party loyalty, especially in the event of wars. Deception is politics is almost considered traditional- it is not a recent phenomenon nor is it a fad that peaks every now and then. How politicians conduct themselves have been largely influenced by how politics had been handled in the past and the role deception plays has evolved; it has been more of a learning process, where by using the past political deceptions, politicians have extracted knowledge from what works to what doesnt, and when and how to use it best. Therefore deception in modern politics have become more sophisticated and subtle in its execution. This essay will discuss the schools of thought of two famous political thinkers whose influence has shaped the way deception in politics is carried out. Niccolo Machiavelli, whose most famous work, The Prince, is a handbook that offers effective techniques to retain power- that is still considered relevant today, because it addresses to the primitive, most basic psychological aspect of people. He employs a realist approach to politics, which is still used by many countries in their approach to domestic and international affairs, and adopts the view that politicians need to act dirty and learn how not to be good (Bellamy, 2010). He insists though, that this shouldnt be always the case; there is a right time to apply this to decision making. This is because we live in a world of wolves and traps so one as a politician must be willing to act as lions and employ force to overcome the one and be as cunning as foxes to avoid the second. However, to compensate for their deceitful means poli ticians should use proportionality in their actions, and must appear good; therefore the Machiavellian politician must appear compassionate, generous, reliable, morally upright and honest, yet be prepared to be treacherous, break their promises and use their resources selectively (Bellamy, 2010). But for this to work, nobody must know or want to know- and this is where its success hinges upon; thus the reason deception in politics almost always works because we as the public allows it so, because we ourselves are prone to self-deceit. And especially when it comes to the politicians, as Machiavelli instructed his Prince, force- as it would be used in conflict and wars- might be necessary if the safety and perseveration of community is threatened but one should never to attempt to win by force what can be won by deception; however, he did not instruct carrying out deception because the public cannot handle the truth, it was more out of necessity to ensure national interest are served and power remains intact (Drury, 1996). Leo Strauss on the other hand, did believe that deception was necessary because the public cannot tolerate the truth. He believed that societies should be hierarchical, divided between the elites who rule and the masses who follow, and this was the natural order (Lob, 2007). He states that people need to be told only what is considered the bare minimum and no more and if information is not controlled as such, they would into nihilism or anarchism (Lob, 2007). Religion was seen as the moral grounding that one should lead their lives on, but this only applied to the masses; according to Lob (2007) rulers need not be bound by religion and the ethical codes associated with it because they are required to deceive in order to govern. Strauss believed that humans are wicked and aggressive by nature, and that there needs to be strict governance and this requires unity. But in order to unite the masses the politicians need to find a cause and this could be achieved by referring to an external threat, which could result in wars (Lob, 2007). Following the ideas of these two thinkers, this essay will now look into two wars that have resulted from roots of deception and analyse how political deception works in real life. Fabrication and manipulation have both proved to be useful in the history of warfare and used as a means to vilify opposition, justify violence and to protect national security and other interests. Caddell (2004) states that depending on the intent, militaries at the command of politicians engage in three levels of deception; The U.S. military community traditionally recognizes three levels of deceptionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢based on the nature of the intent; Strategic Deception intends to disguise basic objectives, intentions, strategies, and capabilities whereas Operational Deception, tries to misguide an adversary regarding a specific operation or action you are preparing to conduct and as seen in the American doctrines, finally, there is Tactical Deception which is intended to mislead others while they are actively involved in competition with you, your interests, or your forces. Caddell (2004) also points out that unless under oath in a court or otherwise bound legally to tell the truth, under domestic law there is no constitutional principle that says that the President of the United States or the Executive Branch must tell the truth. Iraq and Vietnam This essay will now discuss two of the most controversial wars (conducted by the United States of America) that have been marred by the use of identified deception in its operation. The Vietnam War (1964-1975) was initiated based on a lie. The incidents that supposedly initiated the war revolved around a couple of incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin; the USA announced two unprovoked attacks on U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese boats- one of which did not take place and the other being provoked by the USA due to their proximity (ten miles) of the destroyer to the Vietnamese coast and by a series of CIA-organized raids on the coast (Zinn, 1991). The lies followed and multiplied; there were lies that were told by the then-President Johnson who assured the USA was only engaged in conflict with military targets when thousands of non-combatants were killed, and when President Nixon suppressed information from the public about the 1969-1970 bombings of Cambodia, which was considered unnecessa ry (Zinn, 1991). According to Jacobsen (2008), the deceptions that took place were done with full knowledge of the people involved; as admitted by a US General, the objective at the time was to keep the American public in the dark and as later found out President Nixon wrote to Henry Kissinger that it would be very helpful if a propaganda offensive could be [mounted], consistently reporting what we have done in offering peace in Vietnam in preparation for what we may have to do. Following Machiavelli and Strauss, all this was masked by implanting ideas that those who opposed the war were un-American (Beahrs, 1996) and that this was a war being fought to secure American national interests and as a means to fulfil its world responsibility, in order to gather and maintain support and power. The recent Iraq war (2003-2011) is also under much scrutiny for its reasons for initiation and implementation. The main reasons to go to war were based on the suspicion that the Iraqi government harboured chemical weapons and that its dictator leader, Saddam Hussein, could potentially use them; what the justification for how inhumane this would be left out of the picture was that when weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were actually used in the 1980s, the US government was supportive of the Saddam regime (Martin, 2003). There was more vocal debate against this war at the time, because its direct correlation with the war on terror did not provide sufficient ground for an invasion of that scale. The crucial political asset of trust which broke the publics opinion and respect for government was still not fully restored since Vietnam-because only one third of the Americans supported George W. Bush decision to go to Iraq (Jacobsen, 2008). Despite the undermining reports of the existence o f WMDs and other contradictory evidence, the need to go to war to protect American interests and defeat terrorism was too strong, and to justify this an agency called the Office of Special Plans was created, distinct from the known and reputable defence services, specifically to find evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq (Lob, 2007). The public outrage over these two wars and the other scandals that have resulted after uncovered deception goes on to show that we still regard truthfulness is still somewhat important (Malpas, 2008). Governments have been overthrown and its officials brought to justice because such deception does much damage to our conviction of credibility and legitimacy of our trust; yet, at the same time, as Malpas (2008) suggests, associated with self-deceit, our commitment to truth in itself is a lie. Although truthfulness is an honourable ideal, the realities of life require a more pragmatic approach, and thus we must accept the necessity of the lie, the half-truth, the obfuscation, and the omission (Malpas, 2008). But what is Truth? In order to fully appreciate deception, we must know what truth is. Malpas (2008) defines truth as a combination of both accuracy, understood in statements and sincerity, understood in actions. According to Arico Fallis (2013) you warrant the truth if you implicitly promise, or offer a guarantee, that what you assert is true. Truth is important, because if there is nothing to distinguish beliefs and our errors, deception and our limits. Truth is the idea of ethics that reach beyond the particularities of our personal and social situatedness that makes possible the engagement with others who may not share in that situatedness (Malpas, 2008). Self-deception thus falls under as a failure of sincerity (Williams, 1996). In government and politics, truth is desirable and it holds itself in virtue, but in line with Machiavelli thought, the responsibilities of government are sufficiently different from those of private individuals to make governmental virtue a rather different matter from t hat of individuals; that is for any government that is charged with the security of its citizens, a responsibility which cannot be discharged without secrecy, deception is a necessity- a government would be considered lucky if it can discharge its duties as such without force and fraud (Williams, 1996). Towards Effective Governance In conclusion, this essay will look at whether we can void deception in politics or whether we should not be fazed by its presence. In essence, only a few actually would prefer absolute truth from their political leaders, given that the deception we would expect would be for our own good. We are often victims of self-deception ourselves, and we accept that deception sometimes is acceptable- we engage in it in every day and every way of our lives. But what should not be confused with this admission is that deception in politics should not reflect politicians individual beliefs and opinions; as long as the deception serves domestic and foreign interests in a manner that would not jeopardize public trust and respect- and if it is done in secrecy than outright lying, it could be held with tolerance. But it should be noted that even benevolent deceptions can acquire their own momentum in unpredictable and undesirable directions (Beahrs, 1996). The way we understand politics could have an impact on how we approach and respond to political deception. The Machiavellians of our time, the advisors, the Generals, the state and defence officers insist that they serve national interests, national security and national defense; these phrases put everyone in the country under one enormous blanket, camouflaging the differences between the interest of those who run the government and the interest of the average citizen which would challenge any reservation we might have raising questions about our identity, our role in the society and our priorities (Zinn, 1991). This, depending on our various levels of understanding, would also stand to the extent deception is possible by a government and how susceptible we will be as the masses. To broaden our capacity to detect deception, we should expand our knowledge base; the more one knows, the harder it will be for someone to manipulate information out of context and the more likely one will be able to detect a fabrication (Caddell, 2004). But we must be careful because typically all deceit carries with it an element of self-deception and almost all deception involves to a greater or lesser degree a willingness on the part of the deceiver to be themselves a party to the deceit-to allow themselves to be deceived (Malpas, 2008). However, deception can only be recognized when we retain a sense of truth, so it is crucial that we keep our commitment to our sense of truth, because otherwise according to Malpas (2008), we lose our engagement with ourselves, others, and the world, and we lose, not only our sense of ethics, but we lose a sense of ourselves, of others, of the world. We need to appreciate that even after accepting the general basis for deception and truth in politics, when it really matters our opinions and acceptance vary; that is to say that ones sense of what deception and truth is and how much we will tolerate it comes from, as used in the premise to this essay, how we understand ourselves, our society and our world. In the political arena, the tragedy is that we cannot have perfect freedom or virtue at the same time (Drury, 1996). But what we can strive towards would be a world where deception would not be a means to justify the end and where truth will remain an honourable ideal and politics is not synonymous with deception but with the genuine intention for effective governance. general definition for deception explore how deception is present in our lives and how that affects the amount of deception involved in politics. deception is necessary in politics, and sometimes beneficial (and sometimes not), and this is because we as the general public allows it so. Drawing from the Machiavelli and Strauss schools of thought on how deception is an integral part of politics- and examining this claim through the case studies of the Vietnam and Iraq wars- the reason politicians use deception is because it is sometimes more desirable than the absolute truth and thus it is easier to exploit and appeal towards the human conditions deep inclination towards self-deceit.

A View From The Bridge - Questions and Answers :: View From The Bridge Essays

A View From The Bridge:  Ã‚  Questions and Answers  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Eddie has rather strict old-world notions of decorum†. Find some evidence to support this.  Ã‚   How does traditional cultural values come into conflict with modern values in the play?     In the play, Miller explores both written and unwritten laws. Make 2 lists under these headings to see how many you can come up with.   The conditions/difficulties faced by migrants are explored in this play. What are they?  Ã‚     In what ways are physical, emotional/personal conflict explored in the play?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  How is the play resolved? Is this a satisfactory resolution? 4. â€Å"Eddie has rather strict old-world notions of decorum†. Find some evidence to support this. Eddie is a larger-than-life figure; he is authoritative, willful, dogmatic and energetic. In relation to his wife, Beatrice, and with the out side world, he is serenely masterful. Eddie is a man with a rather thin surface of good humour; underneath, he is quarrelsome and authoritative. Although he loves Catherine he expects her to live according to his expectations. Eddie appears to be completely satisfied with the way his family is at the beginning of the play; it is the possibility of change that upsets him.  Ã‚   Eddie is prepared to believe, and say, anything that will keep the family together, to maintain the integrity of his family life and the relationship he has with Catherine. In the end Eddie pictures himself as a generous extrovert, and he is wiling to fight to the death to preserve his ‘name’ for liberalism and honour, whose limitations have been exposed by his behavior towards the family.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In Act I, in the last few scenes, Eddie tries to assert an authoritative manner upon Marco and Rodolpho, aiming the threats mostly at Rodolpho. In one scene Eddie points out to them that Catherine is coming in later than usually that she should be home at a certain time, thereby setting rules for her and Rodolpho. There is also the homosexuality theme, which is play on by Eddie he tries to convince others that Rodolpho is gay so that Catherine will stay away from him, but in the end he betrays the cousins and everyone loses the respect they have for him. 6. How does traditional cultural values come into conflict with modern values in the play?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the play I believe Eddie is the symbol for the traditional cultural values, while Rodolpho is with the modern, young values.

Pneumonia Essay -- Papers

Pneumonia Pneumonia is a serious infection or inflammation of your lungs. There are two main types Pneumonia one of these is bacterial pneumonia. This can attack anyone from infants to the very old. People who are alcoholics, debilitated, post-operative patients, people with respiratory diseases or viral infections and people who have weakened immune systems are at greater risk. Pneumonia bacteria are present in some healthy throats. When body defences are weakened in some way, by illness, old age, malnutrition, general debility or impaired immunity, the bacteria can multiply and cause serious damage. Usually, when a person's resistance is lowered, bacteria work their way into the lungs and inflame the air sacs and a person's temperature may rise as high as 105 degrees F. The other one is viral pneumonia. Half of all pneumonias are believed to be caused by viruses. More and more viruses are being identified as the cause of respiratory infection, and though most attack the upper respiratory tract, some produce pneu...

Reality TV and the Effects on Youth

Reality television has come to dominate the television industry. There are educational reality shows and noneducational reality shows. They both have their entertainment values. The difference? One is productive television, and one is counterproductive. There is good and bad in everything, and everything is good in moderation, but counterproductive TV is taking over productive TV. The time slots to watch educational reality shows are generally later in the evening. It is almost as if TV is trying to â€Å"dumb down† America. Non-educational Reality Television â€Å"Noneducational† reality TV includes shows like Keeping Up With The Kardashians, Teen Pregnancy, and My Sweet Sixteen. These prime time shows target youth, but they do not teach lessons. In fact, they do the opposite, since many young people think it okay to emulate these reality show stars. All these shows are scripted. For instance, Jersey Shore is actually filmed on a set 80% of the time. Yet these shows are passed off as reality. These shows promote drinking and heavy sexual content. Nonetheless they air in the time slot that targets youth. Kids seem to be growing up faster than just 20 years ago; perhaps disrespect and aggression can be blamed on the influence of the shows they are watching. Instead of fighting and being rude to each other, it would be nice if the characters in these shows could, for example, reflect how ten ordinary people come into a house and work together to make the quality of life better for everyone. They could show the reality of working together to pay the bills and keep food on the table. They could teach how to step in when something bad happens to someone else and help them get back on their feet in one way or another. Instead they have gone in the direction of survival of the fittest. Is this really the image that should be shown and taught to our future leaders? If where America has been heading in the past 20 years, it is apparent that survival of the fittest is not working. Perhaps if prime time television were to promote working together, it might help ensure a productive future. Educational Reality Television Reality TV does have positive things to offer. Some educational reality shows are Dirty Jobs, Cake Boss, and Do You know Who You Are. These types of shows depict the reality of America. They show what truly makes America run, and teach true morals and genuine respect towards others. True, these shows are scripted as well, but they are geared toward education and not violence, or the promotion of teen pregnancy, and spousal abuse. These shows do not promote alcohol abuse or speculate who is having sex with whom. However, these shows are targeted toward adults, as they are on at a later time slot, and much of our youth is not interested in watching real life. Prime Time Television Prime time television is aiming for ratings rather than the promotion of morals. But I think they could produce productive TV and get better ratings. Viewers must take some responsibility, though, since we can control what our kids watch. If most people ban shows that deliver negative messages from our homes, ratings will plummet and I would imagine TV executives would completely restructure their programming very quickly.