The Relationship between Employee Commitment and Employee Engagement, Assignment

The Relationship between Employee Commitment and Employee Engagement, Employee Satisfaction - Assignment Example It also can be referred as creating a healthy work environment for the employees in order to motivate them. It will help the employees to connect with their work and job responsibilities (Storey, Wright and Ulrich, 2009, p.300). On the other hand, commitment can be defined as willingness to persevere in a course of reluctance and action to change plans. The employees devote their energy and time to fulfil their job responsibility as well as their personal, community, family and spiritual obligations. Employees, who are committed to their organizations and highly engaged in their job, provide effective competitive advantages to the organizations in terms of higher output. Uncommitted employees do not bother about workplace performance and outputs. On the other hand, the committed employees tend to provide their total effort to fulfil their personal career goals and job responsibility. Engagement of an employee cannot possible without effective commitment towards the organization and s eer hard work. Leaders or the managers of an organization play a vital role in employee engagement. It is important for a manager to provide value to the needs or satisfaction level of an employee in order to retrain employee commitment and employee engagement. Only a motivated employee can perform effectively in an organization. ... It will help an organization to achieve success (Mannelly, 2009, p.161). Committed employees are more engaged to their job and organization comparing to the uncommitted employees. Employee engagement, employer practices, work performance and business results are highly related to each other. It is the responsibility of the employers to motivate their employees to perform efficiently. Effective performance appraisal, incentive systems, career growth opportunities are the motivation and performance drivers for an employee in an organization. These aspects made an employee committed to their job. Committed employees provide their best performance in order to capitalize on the potential career opportunities. Therefore, it can be stated that, effective employee engagement can help an organization to increase its business productivity. Effective performance appraisal system increases the commitment level of an employee. It is evident that the global workplace behaviour is changing dramatic ally (Albrecht, 2010, p.67). Now-a-days, the customers are trying to achieve value added and high quality products and services. Therefore, the global organizations are trying to motivate their workforce in order to meet with the demand of the customers. The uncommitted employees cannot perform effectively due to lack of workplace motivation. As the skilled and motivated employees are the biggest assets of an organization, therefore it is responsibility of the organization to take care of their needs. Therefore, it can be concluded that committed employees are more engaged with their work and responsibilities than the uncommitted employees. Is it correct to say that Committed Employees are more satisfied than

A Comparison Of Multiple Theories Of International Relations Politics Essay

A Comparison Of Multiple Theories Of International Relations Politics Essay To have a deep understanding in international relations, everyone must grasp many theories which are Realism theory, Liberalism theory, International Political Economy theory, and others. Realism theory is one of the oldest theories that has been created for a long time that is why many people have a view that Realism theory is an outdated approach or that Realism theory can no longer be used to explain international relations. However, we strongly believe that Realism theory is still playing an imperative role in interpreting current international relations. In this paper, we are going to demonstrate that Realism theory is not an outdated theory in international relations since Realism theory is still being used to explain international relations at current circumstances. We begin with providing an overview of Realism theory, and we, then, gives several case studies in order to prove that Realism theory is not outdated. Overview of Realism Theory Since Realism theory has been emerged for a long time, many elements of Realism theory have been developed. Thus, we need to know those elements so that we can have a clear picture of Realism theory. In this part, five crucial elements of Realism theory, which are classical realism, neo-classical realism, strategic realism, structural realism or neo-realism, and stability realism or hegemony and balance of power, will be briefly explored. Classical Realism In classical realism, there are three prominent realism scholars whose names are Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. Thucydides, who is an ancient Greek historian, developed his main concept in classical realism, which is called naturalist character to show that there is anarchy in international relations. He believes that all states are naturally unequal in power that is why they usually have competitions and conflicts among them. Thucydides agrees with the idea that Man is a political animal said by Aristotle, and he further ascertains that political animals are highly unequal in their powers and capabilities to dominate others and to defend themselves. Thus, he recommended that all states, especially weak states, and statespeople must conduct properly in IR by knowing deeply the inequality of power environment so that they can survive and prosper. Decision makers should have thought deeply and carefully before making the final ones whether or not the outcome is goo d. More importantly, he introduces the view that there is no Justice in equality of power in IR. It means that the great power ones can do whatever they want whereas the minor power ones suffer what results from the actions of great power want. Indeed, Thucydides sees that there is anarchy in international relations since there is an inequality of power. Therefore, all states, especially weak states, have no real choices in operation, but they try to adapt into the environment of power politics or go to war in order to secure and survive. The other crucial classical realist in IR is the Renaissance Italian political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli who believes that state leaders always try to take advantages and prevent state interest for their countries. In doing so, state leaders need to use two important means in conducting foreign policy which are power and deception. Leaders need power because when they are strong, they are able to defend their countries and to pursue their national interest. Using deception in foreign policy also helps leaders not to miss the opportunity to gain advantages for their countries. State leaders need to grasp well about their rivals or competitors so that it is easy for them to win over their rivals or competitors. Beside this, he has an assumption that the world is a dangerous place, but there are opportunities in the world as well. Therefore, in order to survive, states must know the danger in order to survive, or states must be aware of opportunities so that they can take advantages of them. Furthermore, he commented leaders that they should not perform foreign policy accordance with the principle of Christian ethics such as love thy neighbor, be peaceful, and avoid war except in self-defense because that principle can lead their states to be destroyed. In conclusion, Machiavelli believes that state is self-interest and that the world is a dangerous place, but the there are opportunities in the world as well. He also provides statecrafts for state leaders to conduct so that they take advantages or bring security for their countries. Beside Thucydides and Niccolo Machiavelli, the seventeen-century English political and legal philosopher Thomas Hobbes who lived at a time of great social change and political instability is also an influential classical realist. Therefore, he developed his concept that is relevant to the nature of political power or sovereign power. He elaborated why people agreed to jointly create sovereign state. Before the creation of sovereign state, people lived in danger because they always have conflicts or wars with each others. Therefore, in order to live in secure and peace, they collaborated with each others to create sovereign state. However, the creation of sovereign state poses other serious political problem which is security of dilemma because no one can control sovereign states. Neoclassical Realism Neoclassical realism is the second evolution of realism theory. Morgenthau is a vital neoclassical realist, and he is pessimistic about natural politic of human being. People are born to pursue power and to enjoy the fruit of power so that they can survive or prosper. The desire of gaining power makes them have conflicts or wars with each others. As a result, there will be international anarchy and conflicts in system of states. Moreover, Morgenthau has similar idea about morality in conduction foreign policy with Thucydides and Machiavelli. As a responsible leader for a state, he or she needs to perform or engage in foreign policy or politics that he or she would be wrong according to private morality. For instance, he or she might lie, spy, and cheat. Strategic Realism Other element of realism theory is strategic realism, and the noticeable scholar of strategic realism is Thomas Schelling whose main focus is foreign policy decision-making. He believes that foreign policy of state is rational which means that state constructs foreign policy depend on what state want to achieve so that game theory can be used to deeply explain foreign policy of state. In game theory, individual that is rational always try to do something in order to satisfy his/her preference. Beside this, he has a view that when state faces diplomatic and military issues, state leader need to find strategic and instructional though in dealing with them. By doing do, state leader is able to make his state survive and be better off. More importantly, he also provides analytical tools for instrumentally strategic thought which are brute force and coercion. In brute force, he refers to the way that state deals with issues by using military force or going to war. On the other hand, coerc ion refers to the way that state solves issues by diplomacy or bargaining, so having a deep understanding of her opponents lets state use bargaining method to solve issues more easily and effectively. In short, according to Thomas Schelling, state needs to think strategically in confronting diplomatic and military issues. Structural Realism In 1979, Kenneth K. Waltz attempted to reformulate other international theories including classical realism in a new and distinctive way, by applying a more scientific approach, which was known as Neorealism or Structural Realism. Waltz took international structures as the center of analysis, and the international structures are internaional anarchy, states as like units, unequal state capability, and great power relations. Unlike classical realists, Waltz believed that human nature had little to do in the system since they were shaped by the social struture or architecture. The anarchic system urged states to pursue power and compete with each other in order to survive, otherwise they would be trapped in the system. Neorealists believed that power is a mean to an end, and the ultimatevend is survival. According to Waltz, there were five straight forward assumptions to explain why states want power. The first assumption is that great powers are the main actors in world politics and t hey operate in an anarchic system. The second assumption is that all states possess some offensive military capability. Each state, in other words, has the power to inflict some harm on its neighbor. The third assumption is that states can never be certain about the intentions of other states. The fourth assumption is that the main goal of states is survival. States seek to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order. The fifth assumption is that states are rational actors, which is to say they are capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival. Neorealist Stability Theory John Mearsheimer is an offensive realist in structural realism theory and he describes about balance of power and hegemony and agrees that military power is still a main tool and critical element in world politic. John Mearsheimer, currently the professor at US University differs from other realists because he determined that the behaviors of states are affected by the anarchical structure of international relations. He agrees that the world nowadays is anarchic where there are the crashes between the states especially powerful ones with no world government to rule over sovereign states and challenge its sovereignty. They, states, are trying to compete for power and seek hegemony. However, states, in fact, can only become the hegemony in their own region of the world but they also want to make sure that no other regional hegemony in any part of the world emerges as a peer competitor. For example, this is what the goal of United States is to protect its sphere of influence in Europe a nd East Asia and it also ensures that there are no other competitors rising to challenge its position. Indeed, if China wants to become the competitor to United States in East Asia, United States will prevent China from intervening in other regions such as the case of South China Sea. This is why his theory was called as offensive realism which rest on assumption that great power are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal. Mearsheimer also stated that the anarchy has two principle consequences. First, there is little room for trust among states and state can ever be certain another state will not use its military capability. Second, each state must guarantee its own survival because no other actor will provide its security. As a result, states inherently have to possess offensive military capability as the necessary protection. We can summarize the discussion thus far by briefly stating what these realists basically have in common. First, human beings as well as states are self-interest. Second, they agree that the human condition is a condition of insecurity and conflict which must be addressed and dealt with. Third, they agree that there is a body of political knowledge, or wisdom, to deal with the problem of security, and each of them tries to identify the keys to it. Finally, they agree that there is no final escape from this human condition, which is a permanent feature of human life. In other words, although there is a body of political wisdom-which can be identified and stated in the form of political maxims-there are no permanent or final solutions to the problems of politics-including international politics. Case Studies U.S. invasion in Iraq U.S. invasion in Iraq is one of the evident which show that realism theory is not an outdated approach in interpreting international relations. That event can be analyzed by using state interest, hegemony, and international structure. U.S under President Bush invaded Iraq since the President wants to keep U.S. as a hegemonic state. In order to be a hegemonic state, state needs to have strong economy and military. In this case, U.S. wants to control oil resource in Iraq so that U.S. can use those resources to boost his economy. With strength economy, U.S. can also promote military strength. Beside this, the international structure also caused U.S. to invade Iraq as well. Terrorism is nothing new for human society, but it is probably exist since human began to regulate the use of violence or threat. The 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington and it is regarding as an issue that concern by International Relation. This is the threat to human security of United States as wel l as the world. For this case United States, the super power invaded Iraq the small state in 2003, the reason is that United States wanted to protect itself from attacking by terrorist groups and care about the worlds security. If Al-Qaida can attack United States, it would be possible for those terrorists to attack other countries in the world. Terrorists are willing to create fear to people that why United States invaded Iraq to ensure security for its citizen and states. Obviously, classical realism theory does effectively apply to the case of US- Iraq war in 2003 due to the fact that United States just use strategic of self defend in order to protect its citizen from being attack by terrorist from Iraq. Public opinion thought that six months before the attack, President Bush met in the White House with eleven members of the US House of Representatives. While the war against terrorism is going okay, he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater d anger: The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict. In brief, I believe that The United States is willing to protect its people and states from being attack by terrorists from Iraq. US, of course preferred the defensive theory to make the states survival. US had made a final decision to invade Iraq before terrorist become the major threat to the international security. Unite States are trying to prevent threats, violence and fear that occur by Al-Qaida and other horror terrorists toward the world security. South China Sea Issue The tension generated by maritime disputes in the South China Sea is the example of hegemony and balance of power featured in Structural realism theory. The South China Sea Conflict was involved by six countries. China, Taiwan and Vietnam claims sovereignty over the entire area. The Philippines and Malaysia each maintain separate claims to specific features, while Brunei claims only a 200 nautical mile exclusive zone. All those states compete with one another because of its enormous economic benefits and the conflicts have started decades ago. It is significant to note that the South China Sea is the critical trade route between Europe and East Asia, and its rich commercial fishing field and enormous natural gas field are worth billions of dollars. Whoever can hold a territorial right over it could gain quite a strong substantial power in politics and economics. It is what China is seeking naval preponderance in the South China Sea to become a global naval power which is a projection to the India Ocean. Meanwhile, the rising power of China from resources in South China Sea comes the potential threat to United States. US try to deal itself back into South East Asian geopolitics and bolster its position in the region by the growing closer ties with Vietnam. In response to US intervention, China stressed that this conflict is an internal affair of China and the intervention of US will only make the matter worse and the resolution more difficult, posed in Chinese Foreign Ministrys Website. Similarly, Vietnam could project that the external involvement of US will strengthen the balance of power relatively to China since China is the main threat to Vietnam since decades ago uptill the present day. Other countries also state to act accordingly in the hope of same purpose. Otherwise, Asian-led multilateral security cooperation is still a work in progress toward this security dilemma but it is yet to address increased arm procurements, Chinas military transformation and US renewed engagement to shore up Southeast Asias regional autonomy and ASEAN centrality in the regions security architecture. What we can learn from this conflict are the struggle of states to become hegemony still remain and the possession of offensive military power was also taken place and incapability of institutionalism toward this long-term regional security dilemma of ASEAN. The successive control over the sea will give China the greater control over Taiwan, Vietnam, and East Asian Countries. Obviously, the ambitious claims of China also demonstrate the aggressive desire to be hegemony in the regions by claiming to sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the South China Sea. At the same time, US also strengthen its stretegic position in region, for instance, exercising military power with Vietnam and making Vietnam its closest alliance. Otherwise, the multilateral talks in ASEAN did not effectively bring all the involving countries into the negotiation since China prefers bilateral talks to deal with the individual countries by using its soft power, increased trade and investment. This signifies that the corporation through institution did not bring any complete resolution to the conflicts. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama Realism theory can better be used to explain the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in 2010 since he could not remove U.S. military base on Okinawa Island. During the election campaign, Mr. Yukio Hatoyama pledged that when he becomes the Prime Minister, he will remove U.S. military base on Okinawa Island. The presence of U.S. military base on Okinawa Island causes some troubles to Japanese such as raping and accident that are caused by American solider. However, that Mr. Yukio Hatoyama could not remove the U.S. military base on Okinawa Island can be elaborated through realism theory in several ways. According Classical realist Machiavelli and Neoclassical realist Han Morgenthau, state leaders cannot use private morality in politics and foreign policy so that they can bring security as well as prosperity to their countries. In this case, being the Prime Minister, Mr. Yukio Hatoyama cannot use private morality in dealing with U.S. military base issue as he needs to t hink about state interest. Beside this, Because of International structures, Mr. Yukio Hatoyama cannot keep his promise. First, after WWII, Japan is not allowed to have war army by its constitution, but U.S. will maintain security for Japan. Second, North Korea is also a threat of Japan. Therefore, Japan needs U.S. military presence so that Japan can be secured. Indeed, the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama which results from failing to remove U.S. military base on Okinawa Island is the evident that show current state leaders still cannot use private morality in politics and foreign policy as well as that international structures determine what state leaders are going to do. 2008-2010 George-Russia Crisis Georgia-Russia War happened in 2008 to fight for the South Ossetia, which is the automous province in Russia. Georgia called for help from United States to back its power for the balance with Russia and also wished to be the member of NATO. However, United States ignored the Georgias intention. According to the theory of Thucydides, there is the inequality of power among states; it means that there are weak states and powerful states. The powerful ones could do whatever they wish to whereas the suffers always go to the weak ones. In this case, Russia, powerful state, could invade Georgia as a weak state, and no one could help Georgai. Although both countries are members of United Nations, it cannot prevent the strong states like Russia to invade Georgia, the small and less powerful state. It states that the states remain the significant and sovereign actor in world politics. Consequently, the international system is mostly dominated and leaded by the strong states who act as the core of the world affair while the weak one followed and acts as periphery of international relations. Conclusion Though Realism started to emerge in the ancient time, from time to time Realism have developed into classical, strategic, structural realism to keep updated with the changing environment of international relation. No matter how realism have categorize into a few more types it still manages to keep its core concepts that state is the main actor who manages the world affairs. As we explained the four mian cases including many others phenomena in the world today, Realism proves that the states behavior are still shaped by Realism theory. Although, nowday the current issues are muliplied not only about security and politics but also environment, human rights, pedemic disease and terrorism, Realism still can analyse those issues very well. Moreover, the multipolar world exists but the state still stands as the sovereign actor in world politics. Then, Realism remaims the significant platform for explaining the internatioinal relation today and decades ahead.

British parlimentary Reform 1832-1928 :: essays research papers

The unreformed British parliamentary system was undemocratic, it excluded the majority of the population from voting including all women most working class men, many middle class men and all the poor. Its distribution of seats was inadequately representative and excluded important towns. It included rotten boroughs, the occasional sale of seats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence and plural voting. The system was dominated by the aristocracy and gentry, and many seats were uncontested. Lang, (1999). The purpose of this essay is to identify the factors that led to the nineteenth century parliamentary reform and go on to assess the impact that the reform made. Around the middle of the nineteenth century an extensive debate took place in Britain on the nature and desirability of ‘democracy.’ Who should be allowed to vote in general elections? Should the franchise be limited, as in the past, to those who had special qualifications, such as the ownership of property, which the rental value had to be at least at least 40 shillings per annum, and those who had an economic stake in the country? Property owners argued that the old system had worked in the past so surely it would continue to do so – and that the wealthy were naturally superior to the poor. Pearce, Stern, (1994). Others believed that the franchise was restricted and haphazard and that the qualifications for voting were outdated and illogical in their view every man had the right to vote, all men had been created equally and therefore all were entitled to a say in the way they were governed. A small but growing number also believed that women should have the vote on precisely the same terms as men. The population of England and Wales doubled between 1801-1851 many parishes began to burst at the seams. Towns like Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds were seeing large population increases due to industrial growth. Earl Grey proposed such towns needed representation in the House of Commons, this would lead to large increase in the voting population if the proposal was successful. On the other hand rotten boroughs were parliamentary constituencies that had over the years declined in size, but still had the right to elect members of the House of Commons. Most of the constituencies were under the control and influence of just one man, the patron. As there were only a few individuals with the vote and no fair voting method (secret ballot) which encouraged bribery and corruption as it was easy for potential candidates to buy their way to victory.

Flag Desecration Amendment

Central Texas College| Political Review One| Flag Desecration Amendment| Dr. Karen Waugh| Jamorion Stanford| 9/17/2012| Flag Desecration The American flag is one of the most recognizable symbols this country has today. As children, we learn in school to cross our heart with our right hand and recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America, while facing the flag, a beloved symbol. As a soldier in the United States Army, I proudly wear a flag as a part of my Army Combat Uniform (ACU). It is worn by soldiers like me to show the love of country, honor and commitment to this great nation.It is cherished by veterans who have fought for this country, and families of the fallen soldiers cherish it because it is a symbol that their loved one lost their life for this country. With all the great things the American flag stands for in this country, where does the right to desecrate it stand? Is it indeed a form for a person or persons to express their right of freedom of speech by the First Amendment, or an outright disrespect of a national treasure that should be protected at all costs? If so, what are those costs? Flag desecration doesn’t come as an easy choice.One would think that this would be the case, but in reality the decision is just not a simple. The decision by Congress on whether to protect the flag from desecration is not that cut and dry. Many views must be taken into consideration when delving into this issue. On one side you have the supporters whose arguments include, that burning the flag dishonors American who fought and died for this country, the 49 states that have called for Congress to pass the Amendment, and the power taken form Congress to protect the flag by the Supreme Court in 1989, was wrong and needs correcting.The opponents arguments suggest that passing such an Amendment would alter our nation’s history for the first time, that there is not enough to justify making such a change to a big part of the First Amend ment, and that flag burning is rare. The next thing to do is consider all the different point of views. When an image of the flag being desecrated is shown, many of us whether you served in the military or not, can’t help but feel disrespected. This holds true for supporters of the Flag Desecration Amendments.For Americans who fought and still fight for this country, an act of desecrating the flag is a slap in the face to the service they provide and the sacrifices they have made while serving. The flag is a national treasure not just a cloth with colors and stripes. It is symbol that stands for freedom and unites this country. Supports for the Flag Desecration Amendment strongly believe that such a national treasure should be upheld and backed by congress, so much so that 49 states have called to Congress asking that the Flag Desecration Amendment be passed.The Flag Desecration Amendment reads; Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (How a Member Decides to Vote) The power to protect the flag is believed by supporters to have been wrongfully taken from Congress by the Supreme Court in 1989. Passing the Flag Desecration Amendment would reverse that action, and protect the sacred symbol. This amendment is about restoring a freedom to the people. The people's freedom to protect their flag, a freedom they enjoyed and exercised for 100 years. Flag Burning Debate and Poll) Supporter’s reasons of the proposed Amendment are convincing, like those of Brooke Brown, a nine year old, who wrote about the flag being a national treasure and that it should be protected, support even from a child are convincing, but there are always two sides to a story. Opponents of the Flag Desecration Amendment, propose reasons that make sense in not passing such an amendment and in doing so would lead to an ultimate betrayal of the freedoms granted to us by the First Amendment.In passing the Flag Desecration Amend ment, it would mean that if a person wanted to express political freedom of speech by desecrating the flag they could not. A proposed Amendment would undermine the First Amendment. As Americans we are granted many freedoms and the freedom of speech is a major one, so if congress were to say that a person could not express themselves and to have it in writing then what else would change. Opponents also make a point that flag burning is rare.They say that is doesn’t happen every year, but when it has that it was to express political speech as the Supreme Court held in 1989. Opponents also say that once freedoms such as this be taken away then what’s to say what else congress will regulate and subject to violations. Anna Ross, form the â€Å"How a Member Decides to Vote† module mentions, that while it might make us mad to see our flag being desecrated, it is not good enough reason to weaken one of the most important principals of democracy.The module simulation was very informative; the how a member decides to vote module shows the steps that are taken by a person in congress on voting for such a change. The process is difficult, it takes a bit of personal beliefs and also being able to be objective and have the rights of the people in mind. One must be open-minded and not be subjected by a single side. The good of all should be considered when taking a vote on a matter such as the Flag Desecration Amendment.Considering the thoughts and feeling of those for the amendment such as what it means to Americans who serve for the symbol of the flag, the 49 states that have called for a change, and for those that think a decision needs to be corrected, while not forgetting that with a passage comes a history altering change, considering that a desecration action is not a common everyday occurrence, and that there is not enough to justify undermining the freedoms given to Americans through the First Amendment.No one likes to see the symbol of our nati on, the one that unites us being hurt; it is not just a piece of fabric with colors on it, but a symbol that stands for freedom. The module shows how difficult a task this can be to undertake and personal beliefs and public interest can conflict, so it goes without saying, can we protect our symbol while upholding the First Amendment? I learned that initially I was for the Flag Desecration Amendment, it must be protected, but as I considered all the views presented surprisingly, I found that I voted NAY.I thought, although I proudly wear a flag on my ACUs, the flag was not the freedom itself but a symbol. The first amendment grants freedoms and to vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, would take a specific freedom away. Although I fight for this country, this country is not the flag itself, it is a symbol, but what it stands for is the many freedoms granted in which I believe are the bigger picture.The combination of these points as a whole need to be considered by congressmen an d women when casting a vote on this difficult subject, one must take into account all points and try not let his or her own views be the only means on which to vote. Works Cited Flag Burning Debate, Political Debates and Polls Forum, September 17, 2012, http://www. youdebate. com/DEBATES/FLAG_BURNING. HTM The Center on Congress at Indiana University and work the â€Å"How a Member Votes† module, September 17, 2012, http://congress. indiana. edu/interactive-learning-modules, Central Texas College Blackboard

What annoys me about the British Weather

British Weather, three words: unpredictable, torturous and unbearable. We have all experienced the excruciatingly painful rain drops plummeting full speed onto our hoods or umbrella’s, haven’t we? Well we live in England of course. As you prepare to leave home, you take one quick glance out of the window, and you see the blazing red hot sun shining, you can actually feel the warm radiation hitting your skin and the last thing on your mind is to remember to take an umbrella or a jacket with you just in case. As you casually walk across the street to the bus stop you have an unexpected encounter with one of your ‘footy mad’ friends who just talks about football. After he bores you to death and then finally leaves things get one notch worse, out of nowhere, completely unexpected you feel this cold spit on your face, few seconds later you endure a torrential torrent of rain blasting onto your body within ten seconds you are drenched in water, unfortunately this has happened to most of us. This diabolical problem needs a solution and the weather forecast is not it. The arrogant weather who miserably dictates us the weather is entirely useless and unreliable. As a BBC clone he talks in that Standard English tone, as you listen you understand that all the information he is presenting to you is all gibberish. The next day you find out that the weather ‘somehow’ turns out to be the complete opposite of what the weather forecast predicted yesterday. So there you have it, the met office should just give up on forecasting the weather because they are completely hopeless. Another point is not the sudden change of weather but the despicably messed up seasons. You never know what you are going to get with British weather it constantly is on the move, there is cold weather in the summer and it’s warm in the winter, this year alone the snow is overdue it’s been expected and hasn’t arrived YET. From the bottom of my heart I would like to tell all of you people who want to visit England that it is not a holiday destination, at all especially in terms of weather. What you will get is not a relaxing, sunny holiday, but mainly an endless pour of rain which blasts on to you like a cannon of water, if you want to experience true English weather then book your tickets in winter as it might be very warm. Britain never inevitably fails to disappoint or leave you feeling in utter despair, whether it is in sport in their terrible world cup campaign or in this case when you want beautiful weather for a special day and it ends up disappointing you. It is always important to always be prepared with a brolly or a coat even if you end up looking like an utter fool in a winter coat like you’re going hiking in the arctic in the hottest day of the year. Cold weather comes natural to the UK and from past experience I get use to this sort of climate as if it was second nature. One of the worst moments is when you have to a spend a depressing Monday of your holidays locked inside at home, bored and in a dull displeasing atmosphere starring obliviously out of the window at the grey, dismal sky. Where droplets of rain are rolling down the window, and you can hear the thunderous cascading rain hitting the roof. At this moment in time you are hopelessly hoping that eventually this annoying rainy weather will just stop! What really ticks me off is that the winter weather causes many disruptions to the public transport system, not that it was the most efficient method of travel anyway. It also causes many businesses and schools to close early which plays mostly in favour for school students. Roads are blocked by the snow and this irritates drivers because they are blinded by the fog, this is disastrous for the economy apparently, because Britain is always caught unprepared even though we experience snowy and foggy conditions almost every year. In summary: don’t even bother to listen to the weather forecast as they talk complete nonsense, and make sure your prepared at least take a coat because it could start raining after all we do live in England.

Essay Sample on the Egoistic Part of the Altruistic Whole

Essay Sample on the Egoistic Part of the Altruistic Whole The internal condition of every person is strongly influenced by the environment he/she lives in. People, events, customs, beliefs are the important factors that formulate our essence. In the modern world life is usually perceived as a battle, where everyone stands for himself, each one is individualistic, separated from another. Thus, its not surprising that we can recognize the flourishing of egoism, a feature, which is generated by this separation. On the one hand, being individualistic is quite important and even necessary. This lets a person keep ones head above water and get a steady position in life. Seeking maximum personal benefit is not so terrible, if consider that this is a primary goal of everyone, rooted deeply in history. Very often to achieve the necessary result a person must be exactly egoistic, because those around are the same and in such circumstances the best defense is attack. Besides, being self-centered does not only mean doing harm to others to achieve best for oneself. It implies strong persistence, decisiveness, and courage, seemingly, positive features. The point is how to use them and what are the fruits of such a policy? Of course, satisfaction and pride, but is there a place for self-fulfillment and self-respect? What do I want to feel afterwards and how do I want to look like? – is the question that should be asked. Many try to avoid thoughts about their act being unethical or unfair toward someone. People justify themselves with the idea that others would do the same and not care a bit, so why not doing this too? Unfortunately, this is the main pitfall, which makes us all alike. Very often we do not care about others, because think that others do not care about us – a vicious circle, created by humans. No one wants to be ignored or harmed, no one wants to hear inflicting words or be used and then thrown away. The proverb The end justifies the means is not always useful, especially, if these means bring negative consequences. Being altruistic today is difficult, but still possible. People should not forget that they live in a community, where everyone is connected, dependent on and influenced by each others decisions and deeds. A society is like a swarm of bees: every member must make his own little, but very important contribution in order for all to survive – help others to help oneself. There is one great sentence in the Bible that sounds very simply, but has a deep and beautiful nature: Treat others as you would like to be treated. The best way is to make this phrase a golden rule of ones life. I believe that every person has a positive soul, altruistic by its nature, able and willing to do a good, to bring light and joy into the world. The other part of this soul, the egoistic one, is a reflection of the environment we live in, people we see around, beliefs and attitudes. I am sure it is possible to combine altruism and egoism, so that they create one strong and fruitful whole, which allows pursuing own targets while not forgetting about the existence of other members of a society, who also have needs, wants and concerns, the whole which allows us to feel Humans. If you need custom essays, research papers, term papers, thesis, dissertation on Sociology, Psychology or other discipline feel free to contact our professional custom writing service.

Greek and Roman Art

Greek and Roman Art Art has changed a great deal since it began many centuries ago. Centuries, however, are not necessary to notice the small changes that are evident even between cultures of similar times. Such is the case with the Greeks and Romans. Both cultures had exquisite pieces of art, but they were very different from each other. The amazing thing about art is that no matter how many differences exist, it is still beautiful in its own sense. There are also a number of similarities that are evident with these two cultures as well, but the point that will be focused on is the differences that are found between Greek and Roman art. The pieces that will be focused on from the Greeks are Black-Figured Psykter and Red-Figured Kylix Depicting a Young Athelete, and from the Romans are Mummy Portrait of a Man and Mummy Portrait of a Young Woman.The Roman Portraits are located at The Menil Collection in Houston.Mummy portrait of a young woman, 2nd century, Louv...The Mummy Portrait of a Man is from the F ayum region in Egypt. It was painted about 150-200 B.C. It is painted in encaustic on wood, and is a Fayum portrait. The Mummy Portrait of a Young Woman is also from the Fayum region and painted in encaustic on wood. This portrait was painted about 150-200 B.C. The term Fayum portrait is actually derived from a Coptic word meaning " The land of the lake," which refers to the artificial Lake Qarun. This lake was a project of the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, and it was this lake that made a desert area of about 100 kilometers into one of the most fertile areas in Egypt. It was such an amazing feat that the lake still to this day provides this region water keeping it fertile.The purpose...