Journal # 1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Journal # 1 - Essay Example Internship is an elemental component of nursing leadership where nursing students get to experience various professional scenarios first hand. The first day of Masters in Nursing Leadership internship at The Lake County Community Health Center involved meeting Damaris, M. She is the director of the family case management, nurse family, pregnancy prevention and health-works program. The meeting acted as introduction to what the internship entailed including the number of times such meetings were going to take place in a week. A notable engagement during the internship period was taking part in preparing for an upcoming performance review for the department (Clark 72). This created an opportunity for one to learn what is required in the operations of such a department. The internship also offered invaluable pointers onto the viability of my intended project. This was in the sense that it provided for a chance to remedy all the shortcomings of the project. The internship experience worked towards improving the content and context of the nursing leadership

In Search of Your Own Identity Essay Example for Free

In Search of Your Own Identity Essay After various writings by Richard Rodriguez and Octavio Paz, I have come across several realizations. Who am I? Should I be a part of a nation and a â€Å"system† that does not value me, or should I be a part of a nation that does not acknowledge my existence? The United States as a nation does not value me, and Mexico does not even know that I exist. These are difficult matters to discuss. We are all in search of our own identity. However, some of us are placed in a situation that makes it very difficult and confusing to know or understand. I have always asked myself, â€Å"Who am I? † I should put it in more crude words, â€Å"Where do I belong? † After this specific question is asked, I begin to realize that I have problems coming up with a response. My parents were born in Mexico, and thus, they are Mexican. Sometimes I feel I belong here in the United States, but other times I feel more attached to Mexico. I am a Mexican-American. However, I feel that I am denying in some way my heritage and my culture by saying that I am. I am denying my parents. I say that I’m Mexican because in a sense I am. I am also an American. I am a Mexican-American. What do these terms put together imply? They should imply that the person is Mexican and American. The term â€Å"Mexican-American† is the very reason why I find myself confused about who I really am. I need to search for my own identity, which leads me to the purpose of this essay. Rodriguez and Paz have discussed this particular problem of identity. All three have different viewpoints. Some of their ideas are similar but mostly contradictory, especially in the case of Rodriguez and Paz. As I was reading, I was able to relate to what they had to say, and in a much bigger sense, I was able to understand and know who I am. I was able to find my self. According to Paz, self-discovery is most than anything realizing that we are alone. Paz argues that our being or our identity becomes a problem and a question. It becomes a problem because of several reasons. We just don’t simply wake up one day and realize that we don’t know who we are. There are individuals who are placed in difficult situations that allow for these questions to arise. For example, the migration of Mexicans to the United States is a situation that will definitely cause many to question their identity. I agree because if we had not moved to the United States, I would simply consider myself a Mexican without a doubt. Paz strongly argues that different circumstances are likely to produce different reactions. This migration is a circumstance that will bring about confusion among the Mexicans about who they really are. It is ironic how a few miles can bring about such a change in you. Personally, I have experiences such a confusion by simply moving twenty miles North of where I lived. I lived in Reynosa since I was eight. Then, my family and I moved here to McAllen. At the beginning, you don’t feel quite like you fit. It makes it very difficult because it is a completely different world. Even though the majority of the people are of Mexican origin, it still makes it very hard. After the years, I became somewhat used to the life here and began to feel comfortable. However, I also began to question my identity. It is the moment we cross that border that we lose our identity. Paz argues that instead of asking ourselves questions, we should do something about it. We cannot go on contemplating who we are, rather, we should work with our situation and do something. Our questions are only an excuse for not facing reality. I agree with Paz because sometimes, we continue to complain and complain and simply think about our present situation. However, we do nothing to change it. I believe that Mexican-Americans need to stop talking about our injustices and discrimination and do something. However, Paz does mention that Mexicans have an inferiority complex. We begin to doubt our own abilities. This happens because of our culture. We are taught to listen and stay quiet. On the other hand, Anglo-Americans are taught to voice their opinions. There are many differences in both the Anglo-American culture and Mexican culture. These differences are the reason why it is impossible to blend or mix. We are brought into a culture that is the complete opposite of ours. This is the reason why Paz says that our â€Å"Mexicanism† simply floats. It never exists, and it never goes away. One of the ways we react to this situation is by flaunting our differences. Paz talks about pachucos. They are a group of people of Mexican origin that are known for their language, behavior, and clothing. I remember when I went to high school and we had a pep rally, which landed right on September 16, which is Mexico’s independence. A group of friends and I decided to wear red, white, and green to celebrate Mexico’s independence. We were simply proud of being Mexicans and wanted to show our pride. However, there were problems with several of the administrators because it wasn’t just my friends and I doing it, but other people as well. The pep rally was canceled because they felt that our clothing would distract and cause conflict with the other â€Å"American† students in school. As I was reading Paz, he mentioned that Mexicans dress a certain way to stand out. They know they are rejected by the â€Å"American† society. They do this to be different and stand out. The disguise is a protection because it hides and points them out. Somehow, they are doing this to â€Å"belong† in some way. They are able to catch the attention of the Anglo-Americans. I don’t agree with Paz. I believe that sometimes people dress a certain way to show their pride. I do not dress a certain way to be different and so people can notice me. I am proud to be Mexican and want to show it off. When fourth of July comes, I also like to dress in red, white and blue to celebrate America’s independence. Is this possible or am I being a hypocrite? This question leads me to Richard Rodriguez. Richard Rodriguez’ Hunger of memory is an autobiography. I was able to read only part of his book. I found it quite fascinating. Rodriguez goes through many problems of identity. He has mixed feelings about his own self. He mainly talks about affirmative action. What does the term â€Å"minority student† mean? Is it something we want to be classified as? I had an experience in high school in which a student denied a part of himself. His mother is Anglo and his father is Mexican. However, throughout school, when it was time to check on the ethnicity, he would check out Anglo. He did this throughout his years in school, but when it was his senior year something happened. He decided to go talk to his counselor and tell her to change all his paperwork. He no longer wanted to be classified as Anglo, but Hispanic. When I heard this, it was very surprising. I cannot understand how this particular person decided to simply become Hispanic just so he could get the benefits of affirmative action. He was applying to scholarships and various universities, and he knew that if he was classified as a minority student, he would receive better benefits. This is not right. You cannot simply choose to be Hispanic for your convenience. You should not reject a part of yourself simply for your own benefits. Rodriguez faced this dilemma. He knew that he did not want to be labeled a minority student, but if this is what was going to get him in society, then he simply had to accept. Throughout life, Rodriguez wondered about his identity. He was criticized by many because he was a well-known writer who was invited as a guest speaker. He would be around Anglo-Americans, and many criticized him because they felt he had become a part of them. Is this really true? Isn’t your identity how â€Å"you† see yourself? Just because other people see you being around another class or race of people, doesn’t mean that you have become a part of them. You simply know that you are Mexican, American, or Mexican-American, and blending with other cultures doesn’t necessarily mean you lose your true self. Because of affirmative action, Rodriguez was able to be a guest speaker, and a professor at a university. He felt threatened at times because the felt somewhat alienated by the â€Å"other† society. Rodriguez did not have a good relationship with the Chicano students. He felt threatened by them. These students were still attached to their parents’ culture. These students knew how to speak Spanish very well. They were proud of their past. Rodriguez on the other hand, spoke in English. His Spanish was not that well. He did not want to associate himself to a past that meant â€Å"poor†. There was one specific time when Rodriguez’ parents saw a Hispanic student wearing a sarape. They were very surprised. Rodriguez said that these students were foolish to think themselves unchanged by their schooling. I disagree with Rodriguez because I believe that just because you are getting a higher education and have a good job, you forget that you are Hispanic or Mexican-American. Rodriguez simply wanted to justify his own change. He did not want to belong or keep a bond between a past that did not bring fond memories. He was not as disadvantaged as other Hispanics. However, he felt very strongly about not going to Chicano student meetings or social events sponsored by â€Å"La Raza. † I don’t agree with him. After reading this, I realized that he is wrong. I am proud to be Mexican-American. I am proud to carry the term â€Å"Mexican† and â€Å"American. † I am proud of my Mexican culture, customs, and beliefs. I don’t need to change in order to succeed or attain a higher education. Rodriguez suddenly came to this realization. He could not simply cast out his culture and simply erase it. At some point, he had a discussion with his several Hispanic students in which he did not agree with them. Soon, he was known to others as being a â€Å"coconut,† brown on the outside, white on the inside. I have learned many things this semester. I had not really given much thought Mexican-American history. I never realized about the various things that were discussed. It was an eye opener. I was also able to realize of the many problems and injustices that Hispanics face here in the United States. However, just like Paz said, we cannot simply contemplate these issues. We need to do something about them. I am attending college to receive a higher education. I know that education is extremely important. However, I am not losing my identity by coming to college. Getting an education does not necessarily make you a different person. I don’t agree with Rodriguez’s viewpoint. After reading Paz and Rodriguez, I began to see myself in some of what they had to say. I realized that I have gone through a confusion stage. I sometimes don’t know where I belong or who I am. I have come to the conclusion that I am simply American. America is a nation filled with various ethnic groups. Hispanics include people from Mexico, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, etc. There are also many Asians. I often ask myself why people from Ireland living here in America aren’t labeled Irish-American. They are simply American. Why then should we be labeled Mexican-American? Cant’ we simply be called American? I have come to the conclusion that I am American. American can mean different things to different people. To me American means being a part of Mexico as well as the United States. I consider myself a lucky person. I am able to be have the best of both worlds: Mexico and the United States. Tomorrow, I will celebrate Mother’s Day here in the United States and Monday it will be 10 de mayo, Dia de las Madres in Mexico. My mom is very lucky. She gets two gifts. I don’t believe that I am being a hypocrite by doing this. These are some of the advantages of being American.

Louis XVI Failure to Prevent the French Revolution

Louis XVI Failure to Prevent the French Revolution Through a close analysis, to a certain extent Louis XVI plays a major role in the advance of the French revolution. He was responsible for aspects of the revolution, but it was an event which was ready for creation, and nothing was going to terminate its destiny. The times prior were becoming extremely difficult, and France was becoming a worn-out, desperate country suffocating from finances and other communal issues. There were numerous causes for why the revolution took place such as the great division in society and specific events, and Louis XVI plays a minor role as the authority figure through the hardship and change. Thus, Louis XVI becomes a vulnerable king who receives a substantial amount of blame for the revolution. Louis-Auguste ascended the throne at the age of 20 after the death of his father and was married to Marie-Antoinette, a queen which was disliked by the public of France. Their characters were seen as contrasting, yet both were disfavoured by the people. Louis was the King in name and in power, but did not support this authority with his character. He was mildly interested in reform, more interested in his kingship, but most interested in hunting. Queen Marie-Antoinette was at fault for the revolution to a small extent also, and was extremely unpopular among the common folk of France as the representative of the hated Austrian alliance. The king was over-powered by the fatal influence of Marie-Antoinette, and was too weak-minded to be stable, and the Queen was too strong-minded to be sensible. The image that was portrayed of the King and Queen to the public eye was not of positive attitude, which causes the people of France to accuse the monarchy The first signs which revealed a crisis to be uprising were the financial situations France was confronted with during the 1780s. There were three main reasons for bankruptcy to take place in France, one which directly involved Louis XVI and caused repugnance to be felt by the public. The constant wars and ruinous loss of most of the French Empire made continuous borrowing a necessity, and along with it came an enormous amount of debt. France was known to have an inefficient taxation system, by which the third estate paid all the taxes and the nobles and clergy escaped on light terms. The main situation which directs at Louis XVIs flaws was that the French court alone was accounting for one twelfth of the whole revenue of the government, which allowed them to live in luxury while the government continued to slip into financial debts, and all the common folk of France. Louis XVI is a major part to why the government was continuing to subside into bankruptcy, and he is seen as a poor r ole model of high status. Specific events from 1788-1799 caused a pressure on France, and created a numerous amount of problems to occur. Louis XVI was not of fault for the reasons, which shows that he was not the only source of the revolution. Frances population growth had risen from knowledge of medical technology upgrading, causing strains on the economy and the agricultural resources of the country. With an increase in population came a decrease in job vacancies, causing a rapid increase of unemployment of the Parisiannes. Another specific problem to occur during the time period of a year was a harsh winter, which forced people into Paris in search of food and shelter. Food started to become increasingly short and prices began to fluctuate. The typical worker was now spending three quarters of their wages on food. The tension that grew from these important events during the year of 1788 and 1799 caused a sudden outbreak of a Paris Mob to form. They were a desperate mob of exceptional size that were idle a nd ready to cheer on the most extreme measures to create a change of misfortune. Therefore, this is evidence of one cause of the revolution, which Louis XVI was not of fault. Additional evidence supporting the fact that Louis XVI was not the main factor for the revolution to take place was the growth of ideas, which had been brought to the attention of the French people. Ideas were brought to the public by members of society who began to question the hierarchal society and its oppressive structure. Philosophers and thinkers were the main bodies of the ideas and believed in rights of the individual in society and the division of power and the basic freedoms of man. Many famous writers such as Voltaire, Jean Jaques Rousseau and many other familiar names endorsed the general feeling of uprising. It was an age of enlightenment and it was designed to liberate men and set them free from fear. They were against the beliefs churches were imposing on educating and religion. They wanted to create a change, and not allow the church to be in such dominant power anymore. Thus, this proves to the point that Louis was not the main vehicle behind the revolution that othe r dominant forces such as the church were oppressing towards the French society creating this distinct tension to the up rise. The last influence to the revolution was how the society of France was divided distinctively into three sections, and this was a subject that was in the power of the king, Louis XVI to govern. An extreme amount of tension and hatred had grown from the three separate classes; they were known as the first estate consisting of the clergy, the second estate which were the nobles, and the third estate holding a large percentage of 90 percent of the population, were the middle class, otherwise known as the bourgeoisie and peasants. The major resentment was held by the middle class who did not want to be categorized in the same title as the underprivileged. The nobles were exempt from almost all taxes, leaving the peasants and middle class to pay for them, which they could not afford to do. The Sans-culottes which was the term given to the radicals of Paris who wore long trousers instead of the aristocratic knee-breeches were from the class of artisans and small shopkeepers. There were no m ajor industrial enterprises, since they tended to be state monopolized or strictly regulated by the state. There were not many job opportunities for the peasantry and middle-class. The third estate was never given a fair chance of speech and was cast aside and ignored in any of its ideas or needs. No matter if they were of the middle class with academic background or just the common peasant they were treated as the outcasts of society. Louis XVI had the power to change the classes, since he was in absolute monarchy, but he was content with the way France was divided and felt there was no need to make the third estate pleased. Instead he decided to ignore their requests for change and left the tension of the estates to escalate. This is an indication that Louis XVI can not be completely excluded from the bringing about of the French Revolution. Thus, through the identification of the reasons of the initial events occurring to the uprising of the revolution, and through the cross analysis of Louis XVI being entwined to the causes, it can be seen that he was only a small component of the reasons. Louis XVI was in absolute monarchy and had power over many subjects, although there were reasons that no amount of power could have discontinued. As many historians have concluded about the French Revolution, France had become a very desperate country with a weak king and had a strong body of reformists, and needed only the smallest of events to occur to set it into fire. Louis XVI (23 August 1754-21 January 1793) was King of France and Navarre from 1774 until 1791, and then King of the French from 1791 to 1792. Suspended and arrested during the Insurrection of the 10th of August 1792, he was tried by the National Convention, found guilty of treason, and executed on 21 January 1793. His execution signaled the end of the absolutist monarchy in France and would eventually bring about the rise of Napoleon. There are conflicting views about his conviction. Not only is it believed that he was guilty and deserved to be guillotined in front of a cheering crowd on 21 January 1793, but a divergent view is held, outlining how his intentions were good but the circumstances were. But to what extent was Louis XVI really to blame? Though it is certain that Louis XVI failed to maintain the centralization of power; people were under the false impression that he was a vain, obtuse, and inadequate monarch, so clueless that on the day the Bastille was seized by revolutionaries, he wrote in his diary, Rien, Nothing happened.. This led to all the large forces in France conspiring to fragment power away from the monarchy. This meant that Louis could have been a scape goat and someone easy to blame for the revolution. He inherited the debt problem left by his grandfather, Louis XV, and contributed to the predicament himself through heavy spending during Frances involvement in the American  Revolution  (1775-1783). Because this massive debt overwhelmed all of his financial consultants, Louis XVI was forced to give in to the demands of the Parlement of Paris and convene the Estates, General. Also Marie Antoinette, who was brought up in indulgence as an Austrian princess, after their marriage became, in the French commoners eyes, the primary symbol of the French royaltys extravagance and excess. She was hindering their payment of loans both Louis XVI and his predecessors had. Thought she didnt have power of anything more than any other French queen until the reforms were rejected, she still had power over his purse, and carried on her indulgent life even when the country was declaring bankruptcy.    This was another target that France used in their feud against their youthful king. He had an Austrian queen, in an attempt to reconcile differences between the two countries, but with many French people against his wife, Louis was led to ignore those citizens opinions and carry on, not worrying about how he could be wrong in having a queen like Mary Antoinette. This in turn may explain why the French started to despise Louis xvi, and in the end turn to executing him.    Complaints about the king, taxing, and voting in the Estates General were on the increase. The bourgeoisie were well informed of their legal weakness and conscious of the rights that other people in other nations, such as the new United States of America, were receiving as a right of a drastic change in judgment. The most important causes of the French Revolution, therefore, were these: the constant unprofessional conduct of the French government and the subsequent unfairness in the distribution of wealth, the incredible hardship that the populations of the Third Estate were subject to, and, finally, the Enlightenment principles finally reaching the thinkers of the day. The ruling parties in France had long since overstepped their boundaries in terms of levying taxes. The Old Regime had become antiquated and impractical, unfit for the growing size of the country and for the well-being of the people. Feudalism had existed for centuries, but it was time for a change. King Louis XVI and his teams of advisors were forced to develop elaborate taxation schemes to pay the inflation on the national debt, which was partly the fault of his predecessors, who had spent colossal amounts of money on Versailles, amongst other things. More than fifty percent of the total budget was directed toward this renumeration. Tax collection, however, was a debacle. Taxes mixed from region to region, and most of the taxes were collected by private businessmen. They would lend the taxes to the government and then accumulate the taxes directly; they then paid themselves both the principal and the interest on the loan and sent the rest to the government. They were liberated to hold back as much as they wanted, so the Third Estate was paying far more in taxes than truly went to the government. Whats worse is that the assets of the country were not centralized; there were hundreds of offices paying out money. By the 1780s, no one had any idea as to what the total asset and liability profile of the nation looked like. The financial crisis precipitated a steep inflationary rise in prices. This inflation was good news for French manufacturing and mercantilism because it resulted in a significant shot of capital into emerging industrial and mercantile businesses. It played hell, however, with the peasantry. Not only did the peasants have to pay higher prices for the basics of life, but landlords began raising fees on the peasantry when they saw their purchasing power decrease. By 1789, over 80 percent of an average peasants household income went to purchasing bread alone, just bread. In that same year, unemployment in many parts of France was over 50%.This, of course, meant practically bleeding the poorest, most disadvantaged people in the country dry of what little capital they had. As time went on, the Churches and the nobles, making up only three percent of the territory, gathered to them upwards of half of the land in the country; they then turned their sights on the largest portion of the French people, and began to take whatever they could from them. Louis was blamed for this as he was that kept the taxes and even added some on to pay off his debts. On top of the taille, the corvà ©e, the tithe and capitation, the vingtieme was called on even when France wasnt at war. In 1787, Louiss financial ministers, Charles de Calonne and Lomà ©nie de Brienne, tried to initiate a series of reforms to stop the complete financial ruin of the French government. They wanted new taxes. The Parlements, which had the authority to raise taxes, want something in return: more regional independence. The aristocracy wouldnt budge on the matter; when Louis calls a select group of nobles together to sell him on the reforms, they flat out declined to consider the matter. They insist, rather, that the only governmental body that can support the new taxes is the Estates General, which hadnt been called since 1614. So Louis XVI decided in 1789 to convene the Estates, General, and an ancient assembly consisting of three different estates that each represented a portion of the French population. If the Estates, General could agree on a tax solution, it would be implemented. However, since two of the three estates; the clergy and the nobility, were tax, exempt, the achievement o f any such result was unlikely.    Furthermore, the out of date rules of order for the Estates, General gave each estate a single vote, despite the fact that the Third Estate, consisting of the general French public, was many times larger than either of the first two. Feuds quickly broke out over this discrepancy and would prove to be contradictory. Realizing that its numbers gave it an automatic advantage, the Third Estate declared itself the sovereign National Assembly. Within days of the announcement, many members of the other two estates had switched allegiances over to this revolutionary new assembly.    On May 5, 1789, Louis XVI convened the Estates General. Almost immediately, it became apparent that the 1614 arrangement would not sit well with its present members. Although Louis XVI granted the Third Estate greater numerical representation, the Parlement of Paris stepped in and invoked an old rule mandating that each estate receive one vote, regardless of size. As a result, though the Third Estate was vastly larger than the clergy and nobility, each estate had the same representation, one vote. Inevitably, the Third Estates vote was doubled to accommodate the difference in population. Louis XVI could be commentated on his good intentions in light of this event. Knowing very well that a revolution was imminent, he let there be an equal ration of representatives, thus editing a tradition to mace it democratic.    The fact that the Estates General hadnt been summoned in nearly 200 years probably says a thing or two about the extent of the situation. The First and Second Estates, clergy and nobility, respectively, were too closely related in many matters. Both were linked to the royalty and shared many similar privileges. As a result, their votes often went the same way, automatically neutralizing any effort by the Third Estate. Additionally, in a country as secularized as France at the time, giving the church a full third of the vote was ill-advised: although Frances citizens would ultimately have their revenge, at the time the churchs voting power just fostered more animosity. There were numerous philosophers in France speaking out against religion and the mindless following that it supposedly demanded, and many resented being forced to follow the decisions of the church on a national scale.    In a way if it werent for Louis making his decision to give more votes to the 3rd estate, there would be no upheaval from the 1st and 2nd estates. On the other hand the revolt of the 3rd estate would affect him. He was stuck in the middle with no was of compromise. Things got worse when the third estate segregated. The Third Estate itself varied greatly in socioeconomic status: some members were peasants and labourers, whereas others had the occupations, wealth, and lifestyles of nobility. These disparities between members of the Third Estate made it difficult for the wealthy members to relate to the peasants with whom they were grouped. Because of these rifts, the Estates, General, though organized to reach a peaceful solution, remained in a long-lasting inside feud. It was only through the efforts of men such as Sieyà ¨s that the members of the Third Estate finally realized that fighting among them was fruitless and that if they took advantage of the estates massive size, they wou ld be a force that could not be ignored. In conclusion, I believe the French Revolution was an astonishingly convoluted affair; it was principally lit by the antagonisms between the first two and the Third Estate, antagonisms rooted in decades of abuse and frustration and not a despot who was trying to fix his families mistakes along with his own. Louis xvi may have made some decisions that would make any other monarch twitch with distaste but his intentions were good , and considering his age and his power , he was an adequate king for a place that certainly had a revolution in its midst.

Who Jesus is for you :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Jesus was raised in Nazareth in the home of Joseph, a carpenter, and his wife Mary. Jesus most likely went to school in a room attached to the synagogue. He was a faithful Jew and followed all the Jewish customs. Jesus was a human being. God took on a human form in Jesus in order to live life like we do. God ‘s love for us is unconditional and infinite. To communicate with us in a personnel way like we do with our friends and family, there was no better way for God to be with us than for God to become one of us. Jesus walked along the same roadways and experienced the same trials and tribulations as other people. Accepting Jesus as fully human is as important as accepting him as fully divine. Jesus experienced stress, anger, frustration and loneliness but he chose never to respond sinfully to these experiences. Given the choice between popularity and telling people the truth, he chose the path that ultimately turned people against him and led to his death.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Jesus is a role model for me. Like Jesus I have been baptized in the faith. I was baptized as an infant whereas Jesus was baptized by his cousin John the Baptist when he was about thirty years old. During his life Jesus was tempted in the desert by the devil three times to give up his complete dependence on God and accept the easy forms of power the devil offered. Jesus resisted for he knew that only his faith in God would give him the power. As I grow up many times I am tempted to do the wrong things. Doing the wrong thing is sometimes easier than doing what is right. Understanding that Jesus also faced these obstacles and that prayer can help you resist in these tough situations in life is reassuring to me.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Jesus taught his disciples and us how to pray. He taught people to pray simply and trustingly to God as father, without trying to impress God with fancy language. Through Jesus I learned to talk to God like a son does to his father; to say what is in your heart, to ask for guidance when you need to make tough decisions. Jesus has taught me to be thankful for all the blessing I have in life. Blessing are not necessarily being rich in material goods. But being rich in the things that matter most like the love and respect of family and friends.

St. Valentines Day Massacre :: American History

In the roaring twenties, the life of organized crimes was at its peak. What was the greatest mob hit ever pulled off in history? Well I'll tell you. It all happened on Valentines Day, the morning of February 14th, 1929. This incident was call, "The St. Valentines Day Massacre". The man behind this infamous crime was none other than, the infamous Al "Scarface" Capone. Al Capone was the all time greatest mobster of all time. The idea of organized crime fascinates me in so many ways. Capone was the only person to have pulled off such a crime. Al Capone was top gangster in Chicago and was one of the greatest members of the Italian Mafia and George "Bugs" Moran was the leader of the Irish/German mafia and he was the main target behind this hit. He targeted Capone because Al Capone‘s had a bounty on his head, $60,000,000, and found George Moran as a threat. George was Capone's biggest threat of all. He needed to take him out quickly. (Al Capone, True Crime Story). Writing this paper wi ll let me learn a lot more about this massacre. There is one question I would like answered, "Why hadn't Moran's crew made an attempt to fight back?" (Al Capone, True Crime Story). Moran's men had a long history of being violent with others. This is one question that we will never know. My most used source on this essay will be internet information and a book. I feel these sources will give me the most amount of information. Using a magazine will too but it was very hard to find a 20's magazine article. A mob hit such as this one seems tough but only someone with the man power and skill could have pulled it off. It took Capone awhile to think about because he needed an alibi. His alibi was finally established and it was time to go to part one of the Valentines Day Massacre. Something you probably didn't know was Al Capone did not participate in the killings or plans of this crime. All though Capone was the main man behind the massacre, he had "Machine Gun" McGurn take care of the set up. Jack McGurn was responsible for many of Chicago's gangland murders, often without Capone's consent. McGurn upset Capone on a number of occasions for going over the top in violence, because everything McGurn did reflected on Capone in the media.

On balance, do you think Google has a serious public relations problem?

On balance, do you think Google has a serious public relations problem? I believe Google does not have a serious public relations problem because of two reasons; first, Google has reconciled with many companies or organizations even if they have litigations, second, Google fires excellent talents and specialists on public relations problem. It is true that Google have experienced litigations. As Google expand its size and growth, they are more likely to have litigation and regulation, especially from competitors or other organizations.However, Google won most of its cases. For example, Google has been working on Google Books Library Project. The main purpose of this project is to make a lot of books in many libraries available on-line. Against this project, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) filed a lawsuit as an infringement of copyright in 2005. It took so long time to be judged, but Google finally reconciled with AAP. Although the detail of this litigation is not announc ed publicly, Google has suggested separating the profit earned by selling books.Of course Google needs to make profits because it is a business firm whose primary goal is earning profits to stockholders. However, one of the most important missions of Google is to make more information available to more people. Many publishers also benefits by Google Books Library Project because customers get more opportunities to know their books. Google will have litigations in the future, but Google will be able to reconcile them if Google can provide benefits to other organizations and construct win-win relationships. The second reason is Google has excellent talents.Sergey Brin and Larry Page were Ph. D students of Stanford, and what’s more Google has had outstanding software engineers and mathematicians, many holding worthless stock options. These talents and plenty of funds are able to attract more marvelous employees specializing in legal problems such patents, copyrights, or trademar ks. Specialists concerning legal issues are especially important for Google, because Google provides service rather than products. Because of the feature of intangibility, services can create profits by licensing.Thus, at the stage of planning Google needs to consider whether a new project is legal or not, and they can actually judge these problems thanks to excellent talents. To conclude, I believe Google does not have serous relations problems, because Google can reconcile the litigations by creating win-win relationships with other organizations and holds excellent specialists who can consider whether a new project is legal or not. What is a strategic window of opportunity? What kind of firms are most likely to discover such a window?The first window of opportunity was emerging of Internet. In the 1990s, the Internet has emerged and many people got a accessibility to a lot of information through the Internet. However, it was not easy to find what a researcher looking for because the amount of information is massive. Researcher sometimes felt frustrated with the clutter of Web sites. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, considered this problem as a window of opportunity and believed a better use of links would help researcher to find more relevant information for their researches.Based on this strategy, Brin and Page started to work on analyzing Web links in 1996. Through the process of analyzing Web links, they developed a ranking system for searching the Internet that yielded prioritized results based on relevance to the object of the search. In the next year, they developed the search engine, and they provided it to students, faculty, and administrators on the Stanford campus. This is the first opportunity for Google, and resulted in the birth of Google.The second window of opportunity was they have developed the new type of advertisements. After the development of search engine, the number of people using is increased, but its revenue from lic ensing remained small. Google needed to expand profit to maintain their vision of vast information available to users without charge. Then, Google decided to allow advertiser access to their multitude of users. They developed the standards for size and type of advertisements in order to avoid the irrelevant ads.At first Google offered advertisements to large businesses, but they noticed substantial market potential soon. This is the Google’s strategic window of opportunity. They found out the potential market by allowing smaller businesses to easily sign up online with a credit card, and their advertisements to start running within minutes. Although other competitors already offered advertisements for large businesses, Google is the first company that noticed the advantages of speed and low cost of advertisements for small businesses. Brin and Page also added another innovative idea.The ranked advertisements based on relevance, and this innovation helped providing feedback to advertisers. Considering Google’s strategic window of opportunity, Google found out the customers’ problems such as a clutter of Web sites or difficulty for small businesses to run their advertisements, and Google solved these problems with innovative idea. Thus, a firm needs to have excellent ability to find what potential customers need and also own innovative idea or skills to satisfy those needs in order to discover a window of opportunity.

Chapter 5 Quiz

Many of the institutions and customs that emerged in east Asia during this era persisted until the twentieth century or even the present. Why do you think this is so? Why does there seem to be more continuity in east Asian history than in other parts of the world? Patriarchal Family. Nomadic Threats. Mandate of Heaven. 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a form of writing that is pictographic and ideographic (like Chinese) versus one that is alphabetic? Advantages: A single characater can mean an entire phrase or can have multiple meanings.If you are fluent in the meanings, then it is easier to read and ideas can be connected together more quickly. If the pictographs represent everyday things that everybody knows, it may be easier to learn to understand the language on the more basic level. Disadvantages: It could take a very long time to learn it all. For example, it could take a very long time to learn all the letters that represent one idea or thought. It has a wider i nterpretation, something may mean one thing to a person and slightly different to another.For example, a letter could represent a cat , could be seen as a panther to somebody else. 3. How do early east Asian religious beliefs and practices differ from those of the other early cultures you have studied so far? What do these differences imply about the societies' structures and their most important values? East Asia did not have a main or official type of a religion. They only followed the rule of the Mandate of Heaven. A leader is chosen by heavenly powers to govern within his realm. If the ruler was successful in his duties then the heavenly powers would rejoice.If the ruler failed then the heavenly powers would withdraw a mandate to rule and a better deserving person will take that rulers place. The peoplel of east asia did not worship one certain deity at all unlike the other socieites . They also believed in the veneration of their ancestors. People believed that with doing good deeds and having great virtue throughout the family, then the ancestors will lead them to propser when they meet their ancestors. The region of Mesopotamia was under the belief of polytheism or many gods. Egypt was under the belief of many gods but mainly environmental gods, such as Ra the sun god, and the afterlife.