Churchill and Roosevelts Speeches Attempted to Bring Hope...

In Winston Churchill’s speech â€Å"blood, toil, tears, and sweat†, and in Franklin D. Roosevelts The Great Arsenal of Democracy, there are many different rhetorical devices and they use them to build an effective argument. Both speeches were written and spoken at different times and different events were going on when the speeches were made, but both speeches are similar in the way that they are constructed and by the devices used in both. In their speeches both Churchill and Roosevelt tried to bring hope to the people during the hard times that the country was going through. Winston Churchill delivered his speech on May 13, 1940, three days after he became prime minister. In Churchill’s speech he wanted to connect with the audience on an emotional level, so he uses many different examples of the rhetorical device pathos. For example, Churchill’s famous quote â€Å"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat†. By saying this, he wa nts the people to know that, he will give all that he has and he will give as much effort as he can and that’s all that he can offer them. Another example of pathos in the speech is when Churchill said, â€Å"We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering†. By saying this, Churchill uses terms such as â€Å"us†, â€Å"struggle†, and â€Å"suffering† to get to the people and to show that the war cabinet crisis wouldn’t be an easy thing to get though out of the rhetorical devices ethos, pathos, and logos, Churchill uses pathos more

Organizational Behaviour for Personalization - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theOrganizational Behaviour for Personalization and Cognition. Answer: Background of Conflicts Conflicts are the worst thing, which an organization can experience. A conflicting workforce makes things tougher for the management on deciding some important things for the company. Nevertheless, conflict at the workplace is a hidden enemy to the teamwork, which indeed is an integral part of any big success. The main purpose of this assignment is to evaluate the given case study based on different conflict stages and providing the relevant techniques to resolve the issues (Huan Yazdanifard, 2012). Conflict Model Stages There are five stages involved in conflicts at the workplace such as follows: Potential opposition Personalization and cognition Intentions for conflict handling Behaviour Outcomes The potential opposition is well evident in someones practices. A good observer or someone working in collaboration with such people can well have an idea of the conflicts. Personalization is something in which the observer feels the conflicting actions. Conflict handling intentions are those, which encourages its possessor for compromising with the unwanted or the unexpected things. The fourth stage is about showing expressions or feelings to the conflicts. The last stage of conflict is the outcomes, which encourage for the conflicts on the lower than anticipated results (Goldman Shapiro, 2012). Types of Conflicts in the Case Study The given case study shows three kinds of conflicts such as personalization, Behaviour and Outcomes. Personalization is revealed when Elaine developed an impression tat Jerry is trying to escape from the critical task and living all those to Elaine. Behaviours is expressed when Elaine complained about Jerry to her direct manager, which is nothing but showing anger on the conflicting nature of Jerry. It is also evident when Jerry complained about Elaine to the HR Director stating that Elaine was rude to him from the very first day. The outcomes are evident when both refused to work together and are anger over one another (Runde Flanagan, 2012). Five Techniques for Handling Conflict The critical situation, which is majorly the production of poor communication in between Elaine and Jerry, it is very difficult to propose solid counter solutions for the conflicts. However, some of the following solutions can well try and provide necessary relieve to the concerned problems: Listen to both the employees and then say something Be impartial to both Elaine and Jerry Promoting teamwork Addressing the resolution to the identified conflicts Taking consent of other responsible associates of the company The resolution can be attained if the direct manager approaches to both Elaine and Jerry and listen to them carefully for analyzing the issue. However, the manager is required to be impartial on making any important decisions. It should only be for the betterment of company. Promotion of teamwork is another solution, which the manager can use. The conflicts should never be ignored as the direct manager did it when Elaine approached for complaining against Jerry. The manager should also take useful consent of other associates of the company as the might put forward some important solutions (Raines, 2012). References Goldman, B., Shapiro, D. L. (2012).The psychology of negotiations in the 21st century workplace: New challenges and new solutions. Routledge. Huan, L. J., Yazdanifard, R. (2012). The difference of conflict management styles and conflict resolution in workplace.Business and Entrepreneurship Journal,1(1), 141-55. Raines, S. S. (2012).Conflict management for managers: Resolving workplace, client, and policy disputes. John Wiley Sons. Runde, C. E., Flanagan, T. A. (2012).Becoming a conflict competent leader: How you and your organization can manage conflict effectively. John Wiley Sons.

2001 A Space Odyssey Essays - Fiction, Space Odyssey Series

2001: A Space Odyssey The concept of space travel has been an interest to many since the beginning of time. Today, scientists are moving at a comfortable pace to expand our vast knowledge of the universe. Many authors dreamed of the possibilities while scientists tried to bring them to reality. The book 2001: A Space Odyssey, written by Arthur C. Clarke in the 1960's, proposed ideas about advanced space travel that took place in a time period only two years from now; however, at the current rate of the space program, mankind is nowhere near the technology showed by the book. Clarke uses concepts of space travel that can still only be dreamed of today. Clarke, an author of the sixties, had ventured out to write a book on a subject that many people had scarce knowledge of. However, since Myths and tales of flying to the Moon or the stars are probably as old as humankind, many were interested (Lewis 16). People wanted to read a book that had ideas in it that were beyond the grasp of humankind. Although many of his ideas seemed impossible to accomplish, surprisingly, Clarke proposed a number of realistic ideas. For example, in 1945 Clarke proposed using satellites to relay communications to different parts of Earthmore than 20 years before the first satellite was launched (17). Clarke had stunned many scientists with the proposition of his satellite communication ideas. Furthermore, Clarke could recreate any space travel image of his dreams through his book. His only concern was to make the ideas as imaginable as possible. Unfortunately, scientists knew real istically the universe is determined to throw in every road block that can be imagined (Carroll 1). Space is much more complicated than Clarke could imagine, and modern day scientists know that. The present day space program does not have the technology to accomplish the missions which were proposed in the book. For example, Clarke had the idea for an interstellar mission to Jupiter. It had begun, five years ago, as Project Jupiter the first manned round trip to the greatest of the planets (Clarke 85). According to the book, this mission had been started two years ago from present day. The current space program cannot accomplish a mission of this calabur. However, many modern day scientists know Interstellar travel is real and possible (Mallove 1). Keeping this in mind, scientists have an incentive to keep advancing everyday. The current day space program is advancing one step at a time. So far, In exploring the planets, it has been robotic technology (Lewis 160). A manned flight to a distant planet was and still is a dream to modern day scientists. However, Clarke was able to recreate this dream and make space travel become an easy everyday process. The space program in the book is so advanced that it is portrayed as a much more lax operation than present day. Today, the space program can only send a carefully selected group of elites to travel into space. The modern day program . . . Demanded the selection of new types of astronauts. Pilots would still be needed to control the Space Shuttle, but different skills would be required to perform space walks, operate the Shuttles robot arm and deploy satellites (Davies 146). Since missions are so expensive, they need to be fully accomplished thus requiring the best astronauts anyone can find. Furthermore, the missions found in the book were considered routine. Contrastingly, present day standards would describe them as explicit and gone about in a more careful manner. An ordinary civilian in the book . . . Had been to Mars once, to the Moon three times, and to the various space stations more often than he could remember (Clarke 35). The civilian had not been through the process of tr aining or selection as is required today. Since Clarke portrayed spaceflight as an easy operation, small missions had seemed to become unimportant. When about to take off, there was none of that old-fashioned FIVE-FOUR-THREE-TWO-ONE-ZERO business (39). Launches in the book were much more sophisticated and relaxed. However, since launches today still use the countdown, the book seems to refer to present day launches as old-fashioned (39). While the book makes

buy custom Chemically Modified Foods essay

buy custom Chemically Modified Foods essay Genetic engineering is a science that involves the modification of plants and animals genetic material. This was historically practiced by farmers, but recently, it was approved as a food production technology. The manipulation of DNA and transferring it to a different organism introduces a trait of any organism to animals, virus, bacteria or plants, and the transgenic organism are programmed to produce in bulk substances such as hormones, nutrients, monoclonal antibodies, enzymes, and various pharmaceutical products such as vaccines and drugs (Uzogara, 2000). This technique is used to transform animals and plants for use as food, and this has created a controversy of whether the food is good for human consumption or not. This paper will discuss the possible effects of chemically modified foods on human health and environment. Chemically modified foods were developed to save the human race and animals from the problem of food crisis, however, according to critics of this technology; the foods produced have raised concerns, not only for the altered nutritional quality, carcinogenicity, toxicity, allergenicity and safety, but also for the effects it has on the environment (Amin Jahi, 2004). The critics highlight that the transfer techniques of genes can lead to mistakes that are beyond correction by human efforts (Uzogara, 2000). The genetic materials might not be transfer to the target cells, any transfer to the wrong cell might lead to unexpected mutation, causing infertility, toxicity or unsuitability. The potential risks associated with such an occurrence are; Alteration in the Quality of Foods When genes are transferred to the wrong cells, they might cause a change in the nutritional value of foods; the levels of certain nutrients might increase as the level of other decrease. However, there is little research on the effects of the change in the levels of food nutrients. Critics highlight that the technology of chemically modified foods changes at a greater pace that scientists are not able to predict the effects and the extent of the effects on pediatric nutrition; for this reason, they advise people to avoid feeding infants with chemically modified food products. Allergenicity from Chemically Modified Foods Critics also concerned with the effects that might be caused by the chemically modified food plants; these foods might transfer allergenic characteristics of the gene donor plant or animals to the recipient plant or animal. Moreover, the chemically modified foods use donor micro-organisms whose potential to cause allergenicity is untested or not known (Uzogara, 2000). There is a potential for new gene combination and non-food sources to cause allergic reactions or aggravate the existing ones. Toxicity The modified foods are also accused of enhancing natural plant toxins; according to the Uzogara, as the desired gene is switched on in plants, the gene might also increase the capacity of the plant to release poison. According to Uzogara (2000, p. 185), Genes for some natural toxins such as protease inhibitors in legumes, cyanogens in cassava and lima beans, goitrogens in canola species, and pressor amines in bananas and plantains, may be turned on and lead to an increase in levels of these toxins which can pose a hazard to the consumers of these crops. Resistance to Antibiotics Maker genes with antibiotic resistance are mostly used in genetic engineering; there are concerns that when antibiotic resistance genes are used in breeding food crops, they might have harsh consequences to the consumers of the breed food crops. A report from the British Medical Association highlights that when maker genes with antibiotic resistance are inserted in some crops, they transfer microbes that cause diseases in animals and people consuming the foods. This might cause antibiotic resistant microbes in the animal or human population, thereby causing antibiotic resistance among the population (Wieczorek, 2003). Environmental Concerns The human and plant populations are affected by any destruction done to the environment, and this is why the environmentalists are concerned about the effects of the genetically modified food crops. According to Amin Jahi (2004, p. 103), the environment is valued for what it can provide for humans, and we protecct it so that the resources will be there for our use and that of future generations. Genetic engineering recommends the cultivation of crops that are resistant to insects and contains herbicides, however, according to environmentalists, these crops could pollinate wild species, creating super-weeds among wild plants; this might have consequences that are yet to be known (Wieczorek, 2003). These super-weeds can affect plant yields, whose consequences include a disruption of the natural ecosystems. The weeds might be difficult to control, thus requiring expensive control programs. Also, the genetic engineers work hard to enhance plant resistance, and if they do not take precau tions, they could introduce new viruses, which might pose risks to other organisms in the environment. Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods The genetic engineers have defended these claims by saying that, foods that are manufactured through genetic engineering are subjected to rigorous testing before are made available for human consumption. Besides, these foods also have health and environmental benefits. For instance, chemically modified fruits such as tomatoes have an improved shelf-life as well as quality. AccordingWieczorek (2003, p. 2), Farmers use crop-protection technologies because they provide cost-effective solutions to pest problems which, if left uncontrolled, would severely lower yields. The production of chemically modified foods enhances milk and meat production among other foods, which helps to alleviate nutritional problems around the globe. Genetically modified foods also have environmental benefits; they come up with biological defense against stresses, viruses, herbicides, pests, weeds and diseases. Also, the genetically modified plants have been found to remove industrial waste and recycle toxic wastes. Conclusion Analyzing the debate on genetically modified foods and its effects on human and animal health, as well as the environment, more research has to be done on this issue in order to clear the doubts of consumers, and for genetic engineers to be sure of the effects and implications of genetically modified foods before releasing it for human consumption. Buy custom Chemically Modified Foods essay

IOS Development Using Watchkit Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

IOS Development Using Watchkit - Essay Example From this paper it is clear that in the mobile platform, a large market share is held by the iPhone; this being the reason behind interest in learning about iPhone development. The process of development entails an outline of how to establish the hardware for the applications. Setting of the software requirements and the final system requirements is also part of the process. Apple Inc. has made it easier for people who want to become developers with them. All a person needs is an account charged $99 annually, a mac computer, Xcode platform and a coding experience, such as the Swift and Objective-C coding languages. A developer page is availed that allows for download of the latest software and SDKs. The page also enables a certification for creation of profiles and groups and one has is free to manage the account and report any difficulty or bugs faced.As the study highlights  the apple Inc. created a modern programming language called swift. It is specifically developed to be more precise and flexible that the Objective-C. Swift has LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine) compiler framework that utilizes the objective-C runtime allowing C, C++, Swift code and Objective-C to run in a single program. The flexibility of Swift is attributed to its capacity to support widespread late binding, dynamic dispatch and extensible programming.  The Swift programming language has several features that indicate some similarities to the Objective-C, though are easier and more flexible.

Diversity Programs Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Diversity Programs - Essay Example William Sonnenschein also talks about this problem in his book, The Diversity Toolkit: How You Can Build and Benefit from a Diverse Workforce. â€Å"The demographics of the workplace are changing and will continue change rapidly...Workforce diversity... presents one of the greatest challenges facing todays organization†. As different humans could only create a different working culture, the success rate to form a single working culture will be minimal. But, if a common and winnable working culture is ‘operationalised’, through out the organization, the organization will be a success story. And, the script for this success story can only be scripted, by an effective leader or manager. So, if I have been a manager, I would impose my own assumptions as a form of single work culture and thereby will suppress the prevailing different cultures. One of the important first tasks of a leader in an organization is the creation of a common working culture. That is, the task of the leader is to create a working culture, embed the working culture in the working group and environment, sustain it and also rectify it, when faults occur. As leaders are the man in lead, they usually have a major impact on how the group initially defines and sets into an organization. Typically, the leaders or managers will have strong assumptions about the nature of the world, the role that organizations play in that world, the characteristics that make up human nature and relationships, how truth is arrived at, and how to manage time and space. They will, therefore, be quite comfortable in imposing those views and personal cultures, on their partners and employees as the organization copes with challenges and targets. This imposition of founder’s assumptions, as a form of good culture is one of the good leadership traits. The workers mind will always be receptive to the leaders’ or managers’ views, orders, suggestions etc

The Forgotten Genius of Norman Z. McLeod Essay Example for Free

The Forgotten Genius of Norman Z. McLeod Essay â€Å"He was a very nice guy and a fairly good director,† said Groucho Marx of comedy director Norman Z. McLeod, â€Å"but no genius. † Norman Zenos McLeod helmed three of the most popular comedy films of all time and yet his name is practically forgotten nowadays. He is not as famous today as, say, Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges or even Frank Capra. He didn’t win any Oscars, nor is he the subject of any film introspective or intimate biography. Neither is his directorial style discussed in any lengthy review by Roger Ebert or any other reputable authority on film. But McLeod’s name is up there with the other greats of his era and his legacy seemed to have endured in many of his movies. McLeod was born in Grayling, Michigan from a family that had no connections at all to show business. Before he discovered the movies, he spent two years fighting World War I in France as a fighter pilot in the US Army. McLeod became an animator before he even discovered that he could direct in the movies. He learned the comedy trade at the Christie Film Co. , which specialized in comedy shorts. His first full-length film was the 1928 silent film, Taking a Chance. McLeod was working for Paramount when he directed the Marx Brothers in two movies, Monkey Business and Horse Feathers, which today are considered two of the team’s best. Horse Feathers especially show the Marx Brothers at their wackiest and most anarchic. The material for the movie was based on the brothers’ stage act, which means that before it was ever brought to film it was already familiar stuff for its actors. They only had to transfer the action in front of the camera and on celluloid, so to speak. It is not easy to imagine anyone directing the incomparable Marx Brothers on stage and on film but McLeod did and he seemed to have done a very good job at it, too. Critics, however, are somewhat contemptuous of his abilities, calling him a Paramount â€Å"functionary† and â€Å"a specialist comedy director†. Matthew Coniam in his blog â€Å"The Marx Brothers: Council of Britain† said of McLeod: Norman Z. McLeod does not enjoy much of a reputation per se. He reminds me of that line in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories, where the great detective tells Watson: â€Å"Some people, without possessing genius, have a remarkable power of stimulating. † For a comedian’s director like McLeod, praise rarely comes any higher. After all, there’s something innately ludicrous about the notion of anybody actually directing the Marx Brothers or WC Fields. But both acts could make bad films, and certainly did when not properly handled. Meanwhile, Monkey Business, Horse Feathers and It’s a Gift (1933) have no business outside of anybody’s list of the twenty greatest comedies ever made, and all three have Norman McLeods name on the dotted line. What did he have that many of their other directors lacked? He didn’t try to impose his personality to the detriment of theirs and – a rarer gift than you might think – he obviously got all the jokes. (15) McLeod certainly got all the jokes. And one of them was that you don’t attempt to direct a great talent like the Marx Brothers you simply give them enough space to move and allow them to do their own wacky and hilarious stuff without interference. And that’s exactly what McLeod did in Horse Feathers. Horse Feathers makes no more sense than a Saturday Night Live episode. But the movie does revel in anarchy, reams of it, and elevates the non-sequitur as close to an art form as it can get. It is filled with Grouchos special brand of humor (e. g. , â€Å"Why don’t you go home to your wife? I’ll tell you what, I’ll go home to your wife and, outside of the improvement, she’ll never know the difference,†) and features the very popular song â€Å"Everyone Says I Love You†, which was sang in three different versions in the movie by Zeppo, Chico and Groucho. Harpo, of course, hummed a version of it in his ubiquitous harp. For most of the time, McLeod keeps the camera trained on his actors and then gets out of the way. He did manage some well staged moments in the finale, where the boys win the football match by driving a make-shift chariot on the track. Most importantly, McLeod kept the pace from flagging, even during the Zeppo sequences, (Zeppo as usual played the straight man to his brothers) with the result that there’s hardly a wasted moment in the film. The movie is also pure, unadulterated Marx Brothers without influence from anyone. It resembles a wide, open canvass where the figures of Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Zeppo moved in perfect synchrony, alert and pro-active to each other’s movement and dialogue. And McLeod’s ever-present camera never fails to capture this synchrony, nor the twitches in Groucho’s eyebrows when he utters a joke. The Swordfish scene, for example, is a master combination of both action and framing. It is easy for a director to intrude and even improvise on the scene to make it funnier but McLeod’s camera remained unobtrusive throughout, allowing the actors the liberty to shine and the audience full appreciation of the lively action on the screen. The camera never shifted from actor to actor but held steady on all the players, rather like a passive and mute witness even as the scene grew more hilarious by the minute. The style is reminiscent of a Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd confrontation scene, which is not surprising given McLeod’s animation background. The director doesn’t interfere with the scene but he instinctively knows when to move back or off as the case may be, which shows he knows the material than he is given credit for. McLeod understands that comedy is a sight gag. If you cut too soon or if you focus on the wrong person, the comedy will fall flat in seconds, which is why Groucho is given the full close-up treatment when he tells the audience they have a choice to leave the theater while Chico does his thing on the piano. McLeod employed the same technique in the pond scene where Groucho sings the third version of the song, â€Å"Everyone Says I Love You†. Any director worth his salt would have given Groucho the whole close-up treatment just to watch his changing expression as he sings to the college widow but McLeod did not, preferring to train his camera between his two players, wholly anticipating the audience’s reaction as the song’s rather racy lyrics is being sung to the diaphanous-gowned and seductively preening presence of the widow on the opposite end of the small canoe. At one point, McLeod’s camera also framed a duck to reinforce the joke then with a sly wink finally settled on a Life Savers candy which Groucho threw at the widow when she fell off the boat into the water. You can almost hear the uproarious laughter the gag must have elicited from the audience. For McLeod, a joke works best when it is supported by visuals caught mid-action by the camera. He employs this kind of visual style in the W. C. Fields movie, It’s a Gift, which he also directed. The story of a henpecked grocer who yearns to own an orange grove in California, W. C. Fields has never been put to better use than in It’s a Gift. The scene where a blind man wielding an unruly cane visits Fields’ store is already a classic. The scene piles visual gag upon visual gag, and ends in an uproarious yet heart pounding sequence of the same blind man crossing a street while police cars, ambulances and a fire truck raced around him on the suddenly busy intersection. Another scene of Fields attempting to sleep on his porch while things and people around him keep him from doing so is an amazing study of both talent and directorial marksmanship. Like his treatment with the Marx Brothers, McLeod didn’t even attempt to reign in the great W. C. Fields but he made sure that same enormous talent is ably supported by an ever increasing mania of visual sights and gags. The scene is priceless in both comic timing and visualization and the movie has often been cited as W. C. Field’s best and funniest picture, undoubtedly one of the greatest, classic comedies ever made. Maybe the reason why McLeod is overlooked by historians and film buffs is the fact that he never wrote any of his materials and his visuals were never fancy but were strictly utilitarian that served the purpose only of the scene at hand. He never experimented with angles or lightings but captured his subjects as they were, making their trademark shenanigans to elicit a laugh. McLeod also worked with the biggest talents and biggest egos in show business. In addition to other classics like It’s a Gift and Monkey Business, McLeod also directed Danny Kaye in the Secret Life of Walter Mitty, the story of another henpecked who escapes the misery of his life by imagining all sorts of exciting identities for himself. Another big talent directed by McLeod is Bob Hope, Mr. Showman himself, whom McLeod directed in The Paleface and Road to Rio. His association with the biggest names in Hollywood of his era could have been a disservice to McLeod. Certainly he knew his talents and he knew comedy and he combined both to perfect effect. But in the end, one doesn’t watch a Norman Z. McLeod movie starring the Marx Brothers or W. C. Fields or Danny Kaye, it was always the top talent first and the director second. In a sense, that was what McLeod did so well, to so totally efface himself that any movie he helmed turned out as a worthy vehicle for the top talent his studio has signed on to. Also, most of his films tapped perfectly into the commercial mood of their times, which is why they were usually popular then and are often forgotten today. Critics also point out that McLeod has very little visual style and seems more competent than inspired. As if his films happened all by themselves and he just happened to be there. He also happened to understand his role in making these movies. For a quiet and self-effacing man like this very unlikely director, that could have been high praise indeed. Work Cited Coniam, Matthew. The Z, incidentally, stands for ‘Zenos’. The Marx Brothers Council of Britain Page 15. 21 May 2009. Blogger. com. http://marxcouncil. blogspot. com/search/label/Norman%20Z. %20McLeod. 3 May 2010.