Football teams for the prison inmates Essay Example for Free

Football teams for the prison inmates Essay Starting in the early 1930’s, state penitentiary facilities began forming football teams for the inmates. Because many people of that time thought this was inappropriate, prison football teams did not become common until the 1970’s. They play a 16-game season in the fall and have a prison Super Bowl in December. Each facility has 3 teams of 25 players each, with 8 players per team on the field at a time (5 linemen and 3 backs) instead of the usual 11, due to the smaller fields. The convicts compete with the teams within the prison, as well as with teams from other prisons within the state, and willing semi-pro teams. The coaches and players are selected by the facility officials after tryouts, some of which who make it on the teams actually having experience from college and pro football leagues before incarceration. The equipment is donated by state colleges and high schools, and ultimately does not cost the prison hardly any money. But do the full-contact games ever get out of hand? â€Å"In the beginning, almost every game ended in a fistfight. But I think the program is more organized and better supervised now. Overall, the players display good sportsmanship, while at the same time venting a lot of frustrations† says prison guard and referee, Stan Cioccia. So what could prison football be compared to? Babe Wood, prison athletics director at the Tennessee State Prison, has an answer. â€Å"I’d say teams are equal to a junior college team. Once there was a player here from Memphis who could have made any major college team in the country. It’s so sad to see a talent like that wasted. † But what thoughts do students have on a prison football league? â€Å"I think it’s probably better that the inmates are relieving tension through football, as opposed to beating up each other† answered Briana Egger (10). However, Parents of the students had different opinions. â€Å"If you committed a crime bad enough to get yourself into the state penitentiary, then I don’t think you should have the privilege of playing sports† countered Carla Murphy.

The Differences Between CMM And CMMI

The Differences Between CMM And CMMI The recent attitude of the organisations to make the products complex in order survive the competitors, made them to employ software in their organisations. However, the community of information systems known for its poor product quality made them to research the methods to improve its efficiency. This led them to discover that the focus was needed more on the processes which in turn led to improve the quality of the software products. The process when used it an efficient way can make the organisations maintain the consistency and help to achieve their mission. Many models and programmes described the ways to improve the product quality. Of those, The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) found by SEI, in 1984, gave a clear sight to the organisations the efficient way to improve the process. Later, it was found that it can be employed in other fields too and thereafter it was employed to improve business processes. However this method had some drawbacks and those were superseded by the Ca pability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). This essay portrait the key differences between these models and describes the effectiveness of using CMMI. 2. Differences between CMM and CMMI 2.1 CMM Overview The first CMM, developed in 1990, was developed for the purpose to improve the process in software development [1]. This model proved to be a successful one and thereof, it became a generalised model for improving the processes other than SW development process like software engineering, system engineering, software maintenance, software management, risk management and also being employed in other industries, governments, organisations and also for business process improvement [1]. Fig.1 CMM Maturity Levels [2] The CMM for Software (SW-CMM) is a framework that provides the way to manage a process effectively. It is a stair-cased structure wherein each step is a maturity level describing the current capability of the process. It tells where the processes are. The CMM scales the organisation from 1 to 5 based on the KPAs achieved by the organisations. Fig. 2.2 Structure of the CMM [3] As shown in the figure 2, each maturity level defines the process capability at that stage and contains (other than Initial) Key Process Areas (KPA) defined of goals to be achieved. Each KPA has certain key practices that are to be strictly followed to achieve the goals. These key practices are arranged as groups (Common features) consisting infrastructure and implementation. 2.2 CMMI Overview à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"CMMI is a process improvement approach that provides organizations with the essential elements of effective processes that ultimately improve their performance. CMMI can be used to guide process improvement across a project, a division, or an entire organization.à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ã‚  [4]. Both CMM and CMMI have the same five maturity levels. In CMMI, each process area has specific goals and generic goals that define the generic and specific practices respectively. Fig.3.1 CMMI Structure [5] There are two types of approaches à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬ staged and continuous. In the case of the staged approach, KPAà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s are defined and then based on it the maturity level structure is drawn whereas in the continuous approach, a specific KPA is chosen and then it is relatively improved by using the capability levels [6]. The CMMI too scales the organisation from a scale of 1 to 5 based on the KPAs. It also provides an appraisal which focuses on improving the plans for the organisations. There are three classes of appraisals, namely class A, B and C [7]. 2.3 Key Differences The factors that distinguish CMM and CMMI during implementation are: 1.integration, 2.KPA, 3.approach and 4.paperwork [8]. 2.3.1 Integration: The CMM has individual models for each function. But when the individual processes when integrated led to few discrepancies like model overlapping, contradiction and each model had its own maturity level which lead to a confusion. This led to the increase in the costs of the companies that were put in training. But CMMI employs models that are classified on the basis of specific areas of interests. These models are those employed by industries successfully. To employ CMMI in an organisation, it must choose a model form the available 22 models wherein each module covers all the functionalities. 2.3.2 KPA: Both CMM and CMMI have 5 maturity levels. But there are differences in the KPAs of each maturity level. The differences in each model are as follows: 1. Initial: In both models, it covers the organisations without defined processes, having dynamic changes (ad-hoc) and undocumented. 2. Repeat: In CMM, the companies that seem to do the same process periodically attain this level. In CMMI, it requires a planned and defined ways of managing the requirements by estimating cost, time and resources. 3. Defined: CMM requires a standard, well-documented and consistent process with few degrees of changes to be followed. CMMI requires the process to be standardised, methodical and procedural with the use of tools. 4. Manage: CMM requires companies to quantitatively measure and monitor process thereby reducing risks. CMMI, n addition identifies and monitors the sub processes that contribute to overall efficiency. 5. Optimized: In CMM, the process is continuously improved by following the best software engineering practices but here the measures are taken simultaneously as the goals are satisfied. In CMMI, behaviour is selected and goals are set to support it. Behaviour is selected on the basis of goals and measures. 2.3.3 Approach CMM is an activity based model. It aims only in the completion of the process and does not care about the desired result and hence it does not motivate the company to make the necessary changes. But CMMI is a result oriented based on key performance areas and thereof it is a best practice for the companies and helps to avoid the possible risks at a very early stage. 2.3.4 Paperwork Both CMM and CMMI documentation has paperwork and meetings that leads to waste of effort and time of the personnel. However, in CMM is process-oriented whereas the CMMI is a goal-cum-result-oriented approach. 3. Benefits of adopting CMMI The organisations that adopted the CMMI reported the following benefits [9]: 3.1 Cost: The CMMI adoption led to reduced defect fix cost, reduced overhead rate, reduced cost of poor quality and increased the average cost performance index with decline in variation. 3.2 Schedule: It led to reduction in release turnaround time, reduction in average number of days late, increased percentage of milestones met, increased throughput that led to more releases per year, improvised and stabilised schedule performance index with decreased variance and increased time delivery accuracy. 3.3 Quality Reduction in software defects (KLOC), errors caused in the source code and the post-release defects and increased focus on quality by developers was observed after using CMMI. 3.4 Productivity Productivity was measured in metrics like number of statements produced per month, comparing the various builds, number of releases per year, software production etc, Productivity of the companies also increased. 3.5 Customer Satisfaction The customer satisfaction, measured using ratings and awards fees, increased since the time of delivery mentioned was accurate and also it was defect free. 3.6 Return on Investment (ROI) ROI ratio measured based on the defects that are overcome, the degree of automation activities and quality and process improvement, seemed to be on the positive side that motivated the organisations to employ CMMI. 4. Case Study of companies switching over to CMMI from CMM The following three points are the detailed reports [10] of the companies that evolved from CMM to CMMI which depicts the improvements and results of doing so. 4.1 Lockheed Martin M DS Initially, the organisation was assessed CMM level 2 in 1993. But later, in 1996 it moved to CMM Level 3 and then evolved to CMMI Level 5 in 2002 in integrating SE-CMM and SW-CMM. As a result of this, improvements in the customer satisfaction, productivity and the product cost were noted leading to the conclusion that the process improvement that lasted for nearly 10 years proved fruitful. Between 1996 and 2002, process improvement was continual and the company increased its productivity by 30% and decreased unit software cost and defect costs by 20% and 15% respectively. The customer satisfaction was achieved as there was an increase in percentage of the available award fees [10]. 4.2 Accenture Accenture, one of the reputed organisations, had a transition from the SW-CMM to the CMMI between May, 2001 and May, 2002. It attained the CMM Level 3 initially and when they moved to CMMI, during which they acquired CMMI Level 3. During the CMMI, the organisation focussed mainly on the processes related to the Measurement and Analysis, Decision Analysis and Resolution, generic goals and Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD). As a result of the transition, improvements in the costs of quality and ROI ratio were captured. The ROI ratio achieved was 5:1 in the quality [10]. 4.3 Boeing Limited, Australia The Boeing Limited process performance was not up to the mark. Initially they were using CMM and Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA 731). Thereof, they decided to improve the process by adopting CMMI so as to 1. Integrate SE and SWE 2.Universal acceptance by customers and suppliers and 3.Risk analysis using Defence Material Organisation (DMO) strategy. There were improvements seen in the product cost, schedule/cycle time and the product quality. The results of adoption made defect fix costs, turnaround time and test audits (pre and post) decrease by 33%, 50% and 60% respectively and product quality increase to a major extent [10]. 5. Factors that have major impact From the case studies it is clearly evident that the integration, approach styles and the need for continuous improvements of the process by the organisation led to the organisations to move from CMM to CMMI. However there are many organisations like Bosch Gasoline Systems, Thales Research Technology, Sanchez Computer Associates Inc, still are using the CMM and reporting benefits thereof. 6. Conclusion CMMI models should be still integrated and developed such the costs involved and the efforts are reduced.

General Strike of 1926 Causes and Impact

General Strike of 1926 Causes and Impact A general strike is when a group of workers from different industries all stop work in support of each other to win certain demands. This would bring the country to a halt and make it very hard for the Government to resist giving in to their demands. The general strike of 1926 was mainly for the miners; they had low pay and worked long hours. They wanted better conditions and equal rights for all. In this essay I shall assess the events leading up to the strike and have a look at all the short and long term causes of the strike. The coal industry before the war was booming. It was used for nearly everything and during the war the demand for coal increased even more. Because coal production was so important to the war effort the Government took over the ownership of the mines and ran them instead of the private owners. Improvements were made in conditions and pay for most miners. When the Government nationalised the mining industry miners hoped it would continue after the war. But in 1921 all mines were returned to private owners. After the war the coal mining industry went into decline. This was because, oil was used as a fuel especially in shipping, electricity became available, more efficient boilers were made, other countries began to mine coal and British pits had been over mined during the war and owners were reluctant to spend money modernising mines. When men from the war came home they found the promises made by Lloyd George were not met and if men have been fighting for their country for four years they are prepared to fight for their jobs and standards of living at home. There are many long-term factors, these are; conditions and pay of miners, at the time of the General Strike an average of two miners were killed per day. Miners were also suffering from ill health because of their work. Miners argued they deserved higher wages because of the risks they took. Mine owners made millions whilst miners were lucky to earn 50p a day. Miners felt they were being unfairly treated. Another long-term cause was the Sankey Commission. In 1919 the Government formed a Royal Commission to look into the problems of the coal mining industry. Lord Sankey led this commission, but it failed to come up with a solution to the problems of the miners. Most members favoured nationalisation but the Prime Minister, Lloyd George, refused to nationalise the mines. The decline of the coal, mining industry was a major one, during the decline of the mining industry owners had to increase hours and lower wages to maintain profits. Others were, Change of attitude after the war and nationalisation. A popular idea among trade unionists at this time was syndicalism this was the belief that several trade unions should go on strike together to bring the country to a halt and so take over the Government for working people. The Miners Union decided to increase their strength by combining with railwaymen and transport workers in a triple alliance. A strike in one of industries meant the other two would stop work as well, so it seemed sensible for them to join together and increase their strengths. A strike of three industries shall have a greater impact on the country and government than only one industry on strike. It shall be harder for the government to keep the country running, so they shall have to give in to their demands. In theory this was a great plan. In the 1920s in Britain, there was a great deal of industrial discontent. It began with the miners. As already discussed, the coal industry was in decline, since 1918. This meant mine owners had to increase hours and give less pay to keep profits going. They tried not to buy new machinery or improve mines, as this would eat away at their profits. In 1920 mine owners told miners their wages would be reduced. The miners decided to go on a strike with the other members of the tripe alliance (the National Union of Railway Men and the Transport and General Workers Union). It was understood that these two unions would join the miners in a sympathy strike. But on Friday 15th April the two unions decided not to support the miners and refused to go on strike. The miners called this Black Friday. It was a disaster for themselves and other trade unions. The miners went on strike alone but were defeated, they had to go back to work for even lower wages. Later other industries such as shipyards, printers and railway workers were forced to accept lower wages. The unions had learnt their lesson form Black Friday; a defeat for one union was a defeat for all. In the future they pledged to stand together. In 1925, coal prices fell yet again and owners wanted to cut wages just as they had done in 1921 but the miners were ready to strike developing the slogan, Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day. This time the other industries went on strike with the miners. The Government werent ready for a General Strike so they brought themselves time buy giving the mine owners a subsidy of  £10 million, to keep wages at the same level as they were before the wage cuts were made. This event became known as Red Friday (Friday 31st July 1925) and was seen as a total success for the working class. It also showed what could be achieved if the Trade Unions worked together. However, it was announced the subsidy would only last 9 months enough time for the Government to prepare for a G eneral Strike, if there was one when the subsidy ended. The Government set up a commission called the Samuel Commission, headed by Sir Herbert Samuel to deal with the problems of the coal mining industry. The short-term cause of the General strike was the Samuel Commission; the commission rejected nationalisation and said the government should end the subsidy. It agreed to wage cuts and said working days should be 7/8 hours long. The report sided completely with the mine owners since the whole commission was made up of rich industrialists. The Government immediately responded to the Samuel Commission. They declared the subsidy would end on 30th April 1926. The owners increased the hours and reduced wages by 10-25% with the support of the government. Many meetings were held but no agreement was made so on May 1st 1926 the miners went on strike for better pay and conditions. The government had been preparing for the strike for some time. They built coal stocks to last for 5 months, increased the number of special constables from 98,000 to 226,000, drew up detailed instructions for the army, navy and police to guard docks, telephones exchanges and power stations, gave money to the owners of haulage firms to put 200,000 vehicles at the Governments disposal and set up the OMS . The OMS was a group of about 100,000 volunteers who unloaded cargo from ships, drove buses and trains. People joined the OMS for a number of reasons. The middle class thought the strike was a threat to them and an attempt to ruin the country economically. Others joined for financial reasons, the Government paid constables  £2.31 a week plus food. The miners were on strike refusing to accept wages of  £1.58. The TUC (Trade Union Council) wasted their time. They never expected the Government to allow a General strike to happen. The miners made their positions weaker by getting a re cord level of coal output. This made it easier for the Government to stock up on coal reserves. When the General Strike began the TUC decided to bring out the workers in key industries railwaymen, transport workers, dockers, printers, builders and iron and steel workers. Nearly 3 million men were taken out of work. And later others like, the engineers and shipyard workers can be called out. In London, at the headquarters of the TUC, there was far less optimism than the workers who were prepared to stay out as long as it takes. There seemed to be little unity between trade union leaders. The Government were willing to let the strike continue, as they were prepared and confident they could last longer than the Trade Unions. The TUC had promised their support if an agreement was failed to be reached. So great efforts were made by the TUC to reach an agreement with the Government and mine owners to prevent a general strike. The discussions went on late into Sunday evening (May 3rd) and according to the main TUC negotiator an agreement was close when the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, broke off the talks with the TUC. The reason for this action was that the printers at the Daily Mail newspaper had refused to print an article about the strike the Government had prepared. They were sympathetic to the miners. The TUC apologised but Baldwin refused to re-open talks. Baldwin knew he could win, they had prepared for the strike and knew the TUC couldnt last that long. But in response to the breakdown in negations, the TUC sent strike negations to the Transport, Railway, Dock, Print, Electric and Steel and Chemical workers. The General Strike began on Monday 4th 1926. The TUC argued that the miners were facing longer hours with lower pay, imposed by mine owners to keep profits up. They said it was an Industrial Dispute between bosses and their workers. The TUC also believed if the miners were defeated it would lead to lower wages for all workers. It was a struggle for all working class people not just the mining community. The Government argued this was a Constitutional issue and that the Trade Unions were building up their strength to overthrow the Government. The Government did this to worry people and get them to side with the Government and it worked. Historically it can be seen that the TUC only wanted better pay and conditions. They were not calling for a socialist revelation to over throw the government. The General Strike in 1926 started because of the conditions of the miners. Other workers realised if they didnt support the miners their bosses may lower their wages knowing nothing shall be done as they had previously seen in the case of Black Friday. This was the primary reason why the TUC found the idea of a General Strike appealing, they knew if they stuck together their demands should be met The Government did not want nationalisation; they were prepared and ready for the prospect of a General Strike. Time was on the governments side and their excellent preparations for the strike led to the governments victory I feel the TUC should have been more prepared for the strike and built their case more for the general public to see that the workers were being unfairly treated by the business owners together with the support of Government. Additionally, all the unions should have shown greater solidarity if they had any hope of obtaining better working conditions and pay. Although the idea of a General Strike is theoretically unstoppable there were measures the Government could taken to avoid the strike, by the Government breaking off negotiations just when a deal seemed possible it seems that the Government wanted the strike to go ahead in order to break the resolve of the unions and set an example that a general strike could never succeed, and they should have been more aware. How accurate is this interpretation of the General Strike as a violent dispute? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer. The General Strike started on the 4th may and lasted until the 12th May; throughout this time some areas were hit by violence from striking workers, leading it to be an idea of a violent dispute. There is presented evidence which backs up the idea that the strike was a violent dispute in a few areas, especially the docks. This essay will measure how precise source C is at interpreting the violence of the location using evidence obtained from looking at other resources. The restrictions of the source will also be evaluated to decide any omissions or possible uneven analysis. The sight depicted in source C is definitely an aggressive one, there are many policemen with the crowd of strikers and not many of the strikers are being controlled. This illustrates that the circumstances were out of control causing a great deal of force to be required. This is helpful to show how violence was coped with throughout the strike given that 200,000 special constables were under oath to support the police if strikes took place. Similarly the armoured vehicle just before the front of the portrait implies that plenty of force was necessary to put an end to the strikes which took place. Equally to the points mentioned above an equipped officer is illustrated in the image aiming a machine gun. This tells us that the soldiers felt endangered by the amount of violence being used and were prepared to use arms to look threatening- especially with his finger on the trigger showing that he was ready to open fire. On the other hand this could also illustrate that the soldiers used weapons to frighten and irritate the strikers causing further violence, as The British Worker wrote that this was happening. This tells us that violence was used regularly by both sides of the strike. The information given in the source is useful in terms of portraying the strike as violent and with the advent of the machine gun pointing at the crowds the painting shows an image of a brutal state willing to open fire in order to oppress its people. During the period of this paining it was an era of communism and socialism spreading and the pictures tries to draw some parallel in terms of oppression and class war. Nevertheless, there are also several restrictions in the source which cause it not to be completely dependable. For example, the picture depicted is close by a dock; this is exposed by the cranes shown in the surroundings of the image. The London Dock was the only district in which it was essential for soldiers to be called in and maintain order. The docks in general were mainly well-known areas that strike took place in. Consequently, the sources consistency is in subject as it does not correspond to the whole country and in many places there were no strikes at all, for that reason it is an unreasonable judgement of violent disputes. Only 4,000 people were prosecuted for violence or incitement to violence out of the millions of people striking, which is an extremely small number proportionally. It is an image of a food convoy, which were usually violent events; so it is not possible to suppose strikes similar to these took place every day, hence the stability of them is not possible to conclude. An additional unreliable point is that it was painted for the Electrical Trade Union which suggests it can be pro-union and so exaggerating the strength of the soldiers to make it appear if the strikers were being forced. In support of the above reasons we cannot trust the consistency of the image even though it does suggest some helpful information. Even though the image has numerous implications of violence, it does not actually show any real violence. Nevertheless it is acknowledged there were cases of violence and these are mislaid in this source. For instance, there are reported cases of attempts to deflate tyres and of throwing stones to butt in the movement of those who black-legged the jobs. An additional example was noted where strikers tried to damage a railway line. Other examples of violence used in the General Strike are given from source A, so it does not give the full picture of the types of violence being used, which it would also be vital to know when studying violence used in the General Strike. The painting was painted in 1964. So, at the time there was communism in Russia, and the fear of communism taking over in Great Britain was high, so the Electrical Trade Union wanted to make Communism and Socialism look better than Conservatives. Overall, Source C is a precise explanation of violence in some areas and how order was kept by soldiers of armed policemen; yet its consistency should be questioned given that the view shown was at a food convoy near a dock- both were the most ordinary areas of violence during the strike. It could also be questioned whether the artist was biased since he was painting the image for the Electrical Trade Union. There is also a need of information about violence in erstwhile areas of England, and in relation to dissimilar types of violence used; consequently it is helpful in the direction of studying violence in the General Strike alongside with other sources, but not on its own. Lastly Source C is an accurate explanation of the war, but not sufficient information can be drawn for it to be entirely helpful by itself and there is an explanation to consider why it is not entirely reliable. Is There Sufficient Evidence in Sources A to E to Explain Why the T.U.C. Called of the General Strike? The General Strike was stopped by the Trade Union Congress on the 12th May 1926. Whether it was a working class conflict in opposition to the establishment or an uprising of the unthankful lower classes, it was a stepping stone in Trade Union movement, however it did not appear so for a while later when Trade Unions lost value and resources. The Strike pulled the labour class mutually to work for one reason and it proved that the essential ideas of Trade Unions were well stuck. The General Strike was not continued for several reasons which I will summarize in the following essay. I will consider sources A to E and see if there is sufficient evidence controlled within them to make clear why the T.U.C. called off the General Strike. The Government had organized for the Strike extremely enhanced than the T.U.C. which was in excess of confidence after the new subsidy in 1925. The government had used the more nine months to prepare for an all-out strike and they did a number of things. Firstly, they prepared Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies, where the nation was broken up into regions and every one had volunteers to keep essential services available such as, food supplies and transport. There was sufficient coal to supply electricity. Also, the primary members of the British Communist Party were detained and imprisoned for sentences of 6-12 months, under the Incitement to Mutiny Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill was in charge of making a certified government newspaper for the duration of the Strike. The British Gazette was extremely biased as it was written by the government. The key aim of the General Strike was to hold-up Britain. Not including a total shutdown of the British nation, the Strike would have had slight impact. Source B can be reliable as it is a photograph from the time, shows us that the nation still had a skeleton transport scheme, only 40 buses from a fleet of 4400 were in operation however necessary supplies were being delivered. Consequently from this source we can see that the Strike was not having a huge impact or the consequence wanted by the T.U.C. Black-leg workers were middle class and jobless people who filled in the jobs of people who were on Strike. E.g. they drove busses and trains. If Britain did not have them, Britain would have totally closed down and the Strike would have been effective, however the majority of the men were pleased to help. The trouble was black-leg labourers were proving to be to some extent excellent at filling in for the strikers who became terrified of losing their jobs eternally and so they returned to work. However, the Source B photo may also be seen as a staged photo as the policeman in the photo appears to be posing for the photo. The government was provoking the strikers to become violent. They had armed policemen and soldiers protecting food convoys and the black-leg labourers, as if daring the Strikers to battle. An extract from English History 1914-1945 says, Churchill tried to provoke conflict by parading armoured cars through the streets. We can see how the government tried to do this from photographs taken during the Strike, though from the photos we can also see the peacefulness of the crowd. In Source C we can see a painting of sturdy, well-fed strikers fighting at the Docks. This was obviously not the real condition the men were in as Britains populations consisted mostly of under nourished, over-worked males-who would have been worse due to the Strike. This source is bound to be unreliable and biased because it was drawn by a member of a Trade Union 28 years after the end of the Strike, even though there was some violence the painting shows just a snapshot of the whole picture and what was happing a cross the country. From Source A we learn that altogether 4000 people were prosecuted for violence or incitement to violence and about a quarter of these received prison sentences. This is an inconsequential number among the millions of strikers and not a major reason to call off the Strike but if there had been aggression the T.U.C might have never recovered. For if there had been hostility the Trade Unions would have lost the sympathy vote and therefore most of their support. Source A is relatively reliable because it is written after the event by a third party. The government could have created far more effective propaganda from a violent strike than a peaceful one. The government also used propaganda to incite brutality. The main line of attack was through The British Gazette, but the strikers had a newspaper too, The British Worker, and they were able to combat the propaganda and broadcast messages, encouragement, warnings and advice to their followers. The sources from both ne wspapers announcing the end of the Strike use words that conjure up images of war, for example, surrender, peace and unconditional. In my view this was a final attempt on both sides to justify the Strike, as wars are thought of as just causes by some and would make the government happy because they had victory and the workers more angry and devoted to their cause due to their losing. The Strike had lost some early support due to a number of peoples believing that the Trade Unions were attacking the British system of government and attempting to overthrow it. They linked it to the Russian Revolution which was known for its violence and brutality (towards the upper classes). The Russian Revolution had begun with widespread strikes and troubled workers, so people were afraid. Also individuals were afraid of syndicalism, the belief that the workers should run the industries as this is rather like communism and would leave many factory and mine owners redundant or in the same circumstances as their own workers. Some early support for the Strike had dried up, perhaps it was going on for too long and people lost interest or perhaps supporters became worried as to how it would affect themselves and their jobs. The Strike could be perceived as a class war and this is illustrated in Source C which shows workers united and fighting for a common cause against a brutal govern ment. Perhaps people believed the working classes were trying to hold the rest of the country to account for its hardships. Others believed it was just two obstinate groups of people on a collision course and assumed they would work out their problems. Unity in the Trade Union Congress might have been fractured. In a source I have seen; a Punch Cartoon from April 1921 An Employers View of the Triple Industrial Alliance there is a three headed dog representing Cerberus-guardian of the gates to the underworld. The three heads, labelled transport, miners and railways are different. Miners looks angry and unsettled whereas the other two look tired and fed up. This shows where most of the turmoil in the T.U.C. was coming from. The miners head is in the middle- as if it is controlling the other parties. Though this is from an employers viewpoint it cannot be ignored as the miners seem, throughout the Strike and even before, to be the angriest, most dangerous of the groups-perhaps the others werent quite so supportive of the Strike and didnt want it to drag on. Another place we can see the miners playing a domineering role in the Strike is Sources D and E. These both state that negotiations are to be resumed in the coal dispute and that t he miners call delegate conference. There is no mention of the other groups of people on Strike-the miners clearly were forthright and more important. So to conclude these sources can tell us opinions and views on the General Strike from both sides but they are mostly biased due to the uses they served. . Source A shows that the strike was mainly peaceful and the government was not able to provoke them which reflects that the strikers were not angry about the strike and hence were looking for a peaceful end to the strike as soon as possible. Source B is vital in explaining why the strike was called off as it shows that the strike was not having the desired effect since goods and services were still being provided by the government. Source C portrays a violent picture but this was not the case across the country. The painting shows that the unions did not have much option but to have a strong, united confrontation with the government but most of the strikers did not have the desire for this and the unions failed to keep the strike going by not being able to have deep unity. Source D shows that the strikers were somewhat glad the str ike was over and tried to show that it ended as they had achieved their aims through negations and there was no need to continue with the strike. This puts on a brave face in the face of what in fact was a defect of the Unions that led to the end of the strike. Source E shows that the government had totally defeated the unions and hence ending the strike, although this was a government paper and can be seen as biased, it turns out to be true as the unions did not achieve any of their aims. However, the two newspaper articles announcing the end of the General Strike are very brief and showed how the government and T.U.C. were trying not to draw great attention to it, as if both sides agreed it was an embarrassment. At the end of the Strike the T.U.C may have hoped that new and unofficial proposals by Sir Herbert Samuel would permit the miners and mine owners to renew negotiations. This was not so. Most men got their jobs back but 3000 men endured recrimination from employers and the railwaymen had to accept pay cuts on return to work. The miners remained on strike for several months. They were ultimately forced back to work after hunger and cold, under the conditions they had neglected in April. All the recommendations of the Samuel Commission, including the ones the government had accepted, were ignored.

The Marburg Virus :: Personal Narrative, Autobiographical Essay

The Marburg Virus Why did I decide to choose to study Kongolese Art? Why didn't I just decide to study something safe, like British watercolours? If I had, I would have never had to spend the past three days in isolation in a hospital in Germany to ensure that I wasn't harbouring the Marburg virus. My experience with Marburg started about three weeks ago in early April--April 1, 2005 to be exact. I had been in Angola for the past seven weeks conducting an intense study of Kongolese art in the rural villages of Uige Province. Angola is not exactly the safest place in which to conduct research so instead of identifying myself as an Art Historian I had been traveling with a group of volunteers who were building schools in remote villages. During the day I would help with the construction, and at night I would conduct my research. At the end of March, we arrived in the town of Uige to build a new two-room schoolhouse. When we arrived, as we did every time we entered a new village, we went to the local authorities to make sure they were OK with what we were going to do. Instead of the normal warm reception that I was used to, the Police Chief, Constable Sammy, warned us that many of the folks in the town were sick, with an unknown illness. Illness was nothing new to us, so we set about our business. Later that evening we met up with Dr. Smith, a British doctor volunteering in the local hospital. He showed us some of the infected patients--he said that most of them appeared to have malaria, as they were presenting all of the classic symptoms: fever, chills, horrible headaches, and an overall feeling of being unwell. (CDC Marburg Fact Sheet) But, we didn't worry as we were all taking malaria pills. Two days later, when we met up with Dr. Smith again, he was a different man. He was not the cheery man that we had met two days ago; instead he was in a frantic situation. He told us that his patients were not responding to the typical drugs used to fight malaria, and to make things worse they had developed "nausea, vomiting, chest pain[s], a sore throat, [and] abdominal pain." (CDC Marburg Fact Sheet) In addition some of the patients had developed a rash on their torso.

Psychos in our mist :: psychopathic behavior

For most of us the idea of a psychopath conjures up images from movies like "Silence of The Lambs" and characters with names like "Hannibal Lector." Fortunately characters like Hannibal don’t really exist. Serial killers and people involved in ritual torture are rare, but psychopathic behavior is more common than you might think. I have known several psychopaths in my life. The clearest case involved an older teen who had no sense of guilt. He could learn the rules, but he had no sense of conscience. The only thing that saved him was a mother who loved him, took him to counseling for years and spent a great deal of time patiently teaching him right from wrong. I remember a conversation where he told me, "People know when something is wrong because it feels wrong. I have to remember or be reminded that stealing from someone is wrong. I don’t feel bad if I take something." Meeting this young boy changed my opinion of a psychopathic personality. Why? Because children with this condition are "emotionally blind." And while I do not excuse cruelty or criminal behavior, I have sympathy and appreciate how hard it is for some people to learn how to act responsibly. Without help, potentially psychopathic children will become adults who never remain attached to anyone or anything for long. They may end up living a "predatory" lifestyle, feeling little or no regret, and having little or no remorse - except when they are caught or about to be locked up. A psychopath is not necessarily a bad person. But they are prone to have problems with society, rules, expectations and relationships. A psychopath will use people for excitement, entertainment, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value (e.g. money, property, comfort, etc..). They can involve and get other people into trouble quickly and they seem to have no regret for their actions. To date there is no checklist of behavior and symptoms that will tell you with certainty whether or not a person is a psychopath. But there are warning signs. The following warning signs are based on my experience but primarily research conducted by Robert Hare, Ph.D - the leading expert on the Psychopathic Personality. Characteristics of a Psychopath superficial charm self-centered & self-important need for stimulation & prone to boredom deceptive behavior & lying conning & manipulative little remorse or guilt

Cisco Systems: New Millenium †New acquisition strategy Essay

The case deals with the acquisition policy implemented by Cisco, by giving some real samples. The most interesting point concerns the way Cisco acquired companies during 90s with 4 main goals: a shared vision, shareholders’ satisfaction, motivating value added for employees, shareholders, customers and partners and a perfect â€Å"chemistry† (P.9). Contrary to the global trend of big companies’ acquisition, Cisco was involved in smaller companies, based on selection criteria (presented below) which fit the company’s needs and strategy: * Small companies: the advantage is that those companies are start-ups coming with new disruptive Ideas highly complementary with Cisco’s businesses. * Limited number of employees (but engineers as the large part of them): Cisco gives a huge importance to skilled people, because as they say, those people are the real asset which permits to increase future market shares, So people retention becomes one of acquisitions’ main goals (success driven by a very low turnover compared with the industry). * Very entrepreneurial systems focused on fast growing: the need to grow by forming part of Cisco is one of the motivating arguments to have win-win negotiations. On the other hand, this kind of companies is not risk adverse and promises future benefits to their owners. * Geographical proximity: for large acquisitions, it permits to shorten lost time and get directly to the real acquisition’s implementation in order to share the distribution channels (cost reduction) and obtain the new product earlier. * Comparable cultures and visions: since acquisition leads to the integration of the acquired company to the group, it is necessary to have the same vision of the future strategy and cultures which can be merged to obtain a coherent unit. Last, the company’s strength resides in its ability to decentralize decision making by creating a new business unit at each acquisition, because the acquired company is considered as a master in its domain. This system permits to make acquired company feel independent in the way it is managed (less change management to be processed). Cisco represents a benchmark as acquirer for the entrepreneurial firms which aim to be acquired because it proposes several advantages in terms of independency, people treatment, product valorization and so on, which form part of the most important criteria for acquisition. Moreover, in the last decade, it increased its attractiveness based on the personalized treatment provided to the new joiners and the restructuration by type of technology which makes economies of scale and allows people to share their knowledge with their previous â€Å"internal competitors† and increase their skills. So, in terms of win-win relationship, Cisco acquisition model can be a basis of comparison for any potential acquired company.

Teaching Pragmatics

Teaching Pragmatics explores the teaching of pragmatics through lessons and activities created by teachers of English as a second and foreign language. This book is written for teachers by teachers. Our teacher-contributors teach in seven different countries and are both native-speakers and nonnative speakers of English. Activities reflect ESL and EFL classroom settings. The chapters included here allow teachers to see how other teachers approach the teaching of pragmatics and to appreciate the diversity and creativity of their endeavors. Taken together, the activities constitute a spectrum of possibilities for teaching pragmatics. Each submission provides novel insight into the ESL/EFL classroom and demonstrates that there is no single approach to the teaching of pragmatics. The variety of approaches means that pragmatics can be integrated easily into any classroom, whether traditional or communicative. What is pragmatics? The study of pragmatics explores the ability of language users to match utterances with contexts in which they are appropriate; in Stalnaker's words, pragmatics is â€Å"the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed† (1972, p. 383). The teaching of pragmatics aims to facilitate the learners' ability to find socially appropriate language for the situations they encounter. Within second language studies and teaching, pragmatics encompasses speech acts, conversational structure, conversational implicature, conversational management, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use, such as choice of address forms. These areas of language and language use have not traditionally been addressed in language teaching curricula, leading one of our students to ask if we could teach him â€Å"the secret rules of English. Pragmatic rules for language use are often subconscious, and even native speakers are often unaware of pragmatic rules until they are broken (and feelings are hurt, offense is taken, or things just seem a bit odd). Neither does pragmatics receive the attention in language teacher education programs that other areas of language do. Nevertheless, rules of language use do not have to be â€Å"secret rules† for learners or teachers. A growing number of studies describe language use in a variety of English-speaking communities, and these studies have yielded important information for teaching. From the teacher's perspective, the observation of how speakers do things with words has demystified the pragmatic process at least to the point where we can provide responsible, concrete lessons and activities to language learners. We are in the position to give assurance that they can learn pragmatics in their second or foreign language and be â€Å"in the club† of English speakers. Teachers can successfully decode the apparently secret rules for classroom learners. Why teach pragmatics in language classes? We advocate teaching pragmatics because, quite simply, observation of language learners shows there is a demonstrated need for it, and instruction in pragmatics can be successful. Learners show significant differences from native speakers in language use; the execution and comprehension of certain speech acts; conversational functions, such as greetings and leave takings; and conversational management, such as back channeling and short responses. (See, for example, Bardovi-Harlig, 1996, 1999, 2001; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 1999. Without instruction, differences in pragmatics show up in the English of learners regardless of their first language background or language proficiency. That is to say, a learner of high grammatical proficiency will not necessarily show equivalent pragmatic development. As a result, learners at the higher levels of grammatical proficiency often show a wide range of pragmatic competence. Thus, we find that even advanced nonnative speakers are neither uniformly successful, nor uniformly unsuccessful, but the range is quite wide. The consequences of pragmatic differences, unlike the case of grammatical errors, are often interpreted on a social or personal level rather than as a result of the language learning process. Being outside the range of language use allowed in a language or making a pragmatic mistake may have various consequences. As the teachers contributing to this volume point out, a pragmatic error may hinder good communication between speakers (Takenoya), may make the speaker appear abrupt or brusque in social interactions (Lee), or may make the speaker appear rude or uncaring (Yates). Gallow points out that maintaining a conversation in English requires underlying knowledge of responses that prompt a speaker to continue, show understanding, give support, indicate agreement, show strong emotional response, add or correct a speaker's information, or ask for more information. Berry discusses the importance of learning how to take turns and demonstrates that listening behaviors that are polite in one language may not be polite or recognizable in another. Unintentional insult to interlocutors (Mach & Ridder) and denial of requests (Weasenforth) have been identified as other potential pragmatic hazards. Left to their own devices with respect to contact with the target language in and out of the classroom, the majority of learners apparently do not acquire the pragmatics of the target language on their own (Bouton, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Kasper, 2001). What makes pragmatics â€Å"secret† seems to be in some cases insufficient specific input and in others insufficient interpretation of language use. Language classrooms are especially well suited to provide input and interpretation. Instruction addresses the input problem by making language available to learners for observation. Some speech acts, such as invitations, refusals, and apologies often take place between individuals, so learners might not have the opportunity to observe such language without being directly involved in the conversation. Some speech events, such as office hours and advising sessions, are generally not observed by a third party, but closed events need not be as private as going to the doctor, as one of our graduate students pointed out: A person might want to know the conventions for talking to a hair stylist in a second language, something equally difficult to observe! The second problem of input that instruction addresses is salience. Some necessary features of language and language use are quite subtle and not immediately noticeable by learners, such as the turns that occur before speakers actually say â€Å"goodbye† and the noises they make when encouraging other speakers to continue their turns. Differences in making requests, such as by saying â€Å"Can I? † (speaker-oriented) instead of â€Å"Can you? † (hearer-oriented) might not be immediately salient to learners. By highlighting features of language and language use, instruction can inform the learner. Finally, the classroom is the ideal place in which to help learners interpret language use. Instruction can help learners understand when and why certain linguistic practices take place. It can help learners to better comprehend what they hear (â€Å"What does this formula mean? â€Å") and to better interpret it (â€Å"How is this used? † â€Å"What does a speaker who says this hope to accomplish? â€Å"). A classroom discussion of pragmatics is also a good place to explore prior impressions of speakers. For example, Americans are often thought of as being very direct. As Howard reports, her learners often tell her that â€Å"you don't have to be polite in English. † Instruction provides the opportunity to discuss the absence of some types of politeness markers in English and the presence and function of others that may not be immediately recognizable to learners. As discussed above, the need for pragmatics instruction is fairly easy to document. Recent studies suggest instruction benefits pragmatic development, both in production and comprehension. (For overviews see Kasper, 1997a, and 2001. For a collection of studies see Rose & Kasper, 2001. For individual studies see Bouton, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994). What are the goals of teaching pragmatics? What are the ultimate benefits to learners? The chief goal of instruction in pragmatics is to raise learners' pragmatic awareness and give them choices about their interactions in the target language. The goal of instruction in pragmatics is not to insist on conformity to a particular target-language norm, but rather to help learners become familiar with the range of pragmatic devices and practices in the target language. With such instruction, learners can maintain their own cultural identities (Kondo), participate more fully in target language communication, and gain control of the force and outcome of their contributions. Kondo notes that â€Å"successful communication is a result of optimal rather than total convergence† (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991). Expanding upon this view, the authors included in this volume point out that exposing learners to pragmatics in their second or foreign language helps the learners to expand their perception of the target language and those who speak it.. The classroom provides a safe place within which learners can try out new forms and patterns of communication in an accepting environment. They can experiment with unfamiliar forms of address, attempt shorter conversational openings or closings than they are used to, or try longer openings or closings that initially might feel too drawn out-just to get the feel of it. The instructor and other student participants can provide feedback. Instruction should allow students to choose how much of the pragmatic norms of the culture they would like to include in their own repertoire. As a result of the activities suggested in this book they will be better able to interpret the speech of others and, therefore, to decide what they feel comfortable adopting. They will also enjoy greater insights into the target culture. Equally important, we believe that students genuinely enjoy learning about pragmatics because it is like being let into a secret! How can pragmatics be taught? We emphasize that there is not a single best way to teach pragmatics. The teaching activities we have included here represent a wide range of teaching styles and approaches. Regardless of method, however, the activities share some important pedagogical practices. Readers will find that 1) awareness activities generally begin the units described in the chapters, 2) authentic language samples are used as examples or models, and 3) input precedes interpretation by learners or production activities. Instruction in pragmatics may utilize the learners' first language as well as the target language. Awareness raising activities can profitably involve demonstrations in the L1 or L1 language samples. Demonstrations may include the use of space, such as where people stand in a line, or nonverbal gestures that accompany certain types of talk, such as shaking hands during greetings or introductions. In Berry's lesson on listening behaviors, students demonstrate active listening behavior in their own language(s) before observing native speakers. L1 language samples can serve to introduce learners to ideas in pragmatics in a context in which they have native control of the language. The samples can also serve as the basis of L1-L2 comparisons, as in Howard's lesson on politeness in which L1 and L2 business letters are compared. All languages have pragmatic systems, and with a little encouragement all learners will recognize that their L1s also have â€Å"secret rules. † Pragmatics is an area of language instruction in which teachers and students can learn together. The use of authentic language samples in this volume is important because, as Wolfson (1988) points out, in contrast to intuitions about language form or grammar, the intuitions of native speakers regarding language use are notoriously poor. Moreover, the use of authentic language included herein makes possible the teaching of pragmatics by nonnative speakers of English. Throughout this volume, the teacher-authors demonstrate many ways to collect authentic language samples on which to base lessons, including -to name just a few- tape recording messages on answering machines, using internationally broadcast English language talk shows, showing educational films, exploring appropriate world wide web sites; and saving letters and correspondence. The presentation of authentic language samples generally precedes interpretation or production activities, thus giving learners something to build on. It is important to take into account the fact that, just as teachers cannot rely on their intuition in teaching pragmatics, neither can learners do so in their second/foreign language prior to instruction. Pragmatics can be integrated into the English-language curriculum at the earliest levels: There is no reason to wait to introduce learners to the pragmatics of a second language. In fact, the imbalance between grammatical and pragmatic development may be ameliorated by early attention to pragmatics in instruction. Kontra's lesson shows how pragmatics can be introduced to learners even at beginning levels. Contents and organization Each chapter has five main sections: description of the activity, procedure, rationale, alternatives or caveats, and additional pedagogical resources. The chapters specify the level of the learners for whom the lesson was designed, the time required to conduct the lesson, resources needed, and the goal of the activity. The chapters open with a description of the activity, followed by the step-by-step procedure for implementing it with language learners. In the rationale sections, teacher-authors review the reasons behind the development of the activities. Applications of the activities to other learners, settings, modes, or areas of pragmatics; ways to expand or elaborate the activities; and caveats associated with the activities are all included. Examples appear throughout the chapters, with worksheets and overheads following the chapters. This book is organized into five main sections. The chapters in each section are ordered according to the level of the learners for whom the lesson was designed, beginning with activities for the lowest level learners and progressing to advanced learners. The first section, Awareness, presents teaching activities that focus on raising learners' awareness of pragmatic differences between languages. The sections following Awareness offer production activities. The activities that focus on production are organized by the area of pragmatics they address: conversational management, conversational openings and closings, requests, and daily life. Conversational Management includes activities that address the mechanics of conversation, such as turn taking, active listening, relevant short responses, and using hesitation markers. Conversational Openings and Closings deals with the boundaries of conversations: how to begin and end conversations both in person and on the telephone. Requests deals with the specific speech act of asking someone to do something. Finally, Assorted Speech Acts presents a variety of speech acts, including complaining during service encounters, turning down invitations, complimenting, and responding to compliments. Finally, the book has an index designed to help teachers find activities appropriate for their students. To make this easier, the index is organized around major features, such as level of learners, type and content of activity, computer use, and nonverbal communication.