Political Parties and the Electoral Process Essay - 1

Political Parties and the Electoral Process - Essay Example In considering this topic, it is important to understand the differences between the two major parties, to look at the role that campaigns play in keeping a strong hold on the two-party system, and to explore possible reasons why third-part candidates have never had much success in American Presidential elections. Differences in Ideology Just as family members offer differ amongst themselves in regards to important issues, the two major political parties are no different. While there are some issues that the two surprisingly agree on, there are many ideological differences that have formed through the years, resulting in the huge divide that we see today. Some differences regarding social issues are evident. Democrats, for example, by and large are in opposition to the death penalty, while a substantial majority of Republicans are in support (Newport, 2009). Another social issue that is even more decisive is that of abortion. Democrats overwhelmingly are pro-choice, meaning that they support a women’s right to an abortion. Republicans, on the other hand, are in staunch opposition to abortion and believe that it should be made illegal at the national level. Finally, consider the differences in terms of the scope of government. The Democratic party supports a larger government that provides more government services to the country, while Republicans push for a smaller and more streamlined government that focused on business and private development (Pletka, 2013). Third-Party Candidates, The Electoral Process, and Presidential Campaigns When one is looking at political news in America, it becomes obvious rather quickly that many citizens are unhappy with their political choices. While the two parties offer different choices, many argue that they seem out of touch with the average America. As such, it would stand to reason that a third-party would be possible in the country, yet for decades such a party has tried and failed time after time. The current system is simply stacked against them. Since most financial donor in the country give to one of the two major political parties, they control the campaigns, air time, and debate cycles. It is difficult for a third-party candidate to even wage a serious national campaign. This is largely due to an electoral system that divides the presidential election into separate contests in each of the 50 states. As such, third party candidates cannot even get on the ballot everywhere because they do not have the financial and logical resources to gain support in each of the 50 United States (Schultz, 2009). Because of these and other reasons, such candidates have never really managed to find much traction when waging a national campaign. Conclusion While there is certainly a basis for having a third-party in the United States, conditions simply have not allowed it. Some of this can likely be attributed to voter and political apathy, while the crux of the issue is likely related to money. The reality i s that there are enough ideological differences between the two major political parties in America that it keeps them separate and distinct in the eyes of campaign donors, and the public in general. Add to this the fact the electoral college system views the race for President as a state-by-state contest,

Humor within Leadership Theory Essay Example for Free

Humor within Leadership Theory Essay The key to the success of any venture is strong leadership (Howe 1994). Courage, vision, and humor are key ingredients in the formula for success. Service to the community or communities also plays a critical role in the development of leadership potential. The importance of humor in this model is fundamental. Every leader has some selfdoubt, but using humor and spiritual authenticity to overcome self-doubt will lead to success and prosperity. And what is said for leaders also can be said for those who are led. Muslim humor is famous all over the Western world. There is an almost endless number of collections, anthologies, and treasuries of Muslim humor, bulging with tens of thousands of Muslim jokes and anecdotes. That the humor of every ethnic group mirrors its conditions of life, its economic, political, and social circumstances, its position vis-a-vis other population groups, is so self-evident that it needs but passing mention. What is perhaps not so apparent is that the jokes, the anecdotes, and the other manifestations of humor are keys to understanding the life of the people in question and can serve as peepholes through which we can look into otherwise hidden corners of existence. As far as muslim communities are concerned, treasuries of Muslim humor can and should be used, and humor should be applied to make the West more likable and admired by the young muslim communities of the world. The techniques and strategies of humor are equally relevant at several levels of living systems, as well as between levels. Thus, the study of humor in multicultural society is interdisciplinary and is becoming a discipline in its own right. The current work is toward methods of negotiation with humor in which the objectives are to obtain a more cooperative long-term relationship and a more rewarding substantive outcome for young muslim communities. Muslim humor is second to no other product of the Muslim mind in revealing the mental state of the Muslims in any given place and at any given time. Whether it contains selfcriticism, directing its barbs at a Muslim group from which the humorist wishes to distance himself, or whether it compares the Muslims and the Gentiles, most often to the latters detriment, the Muslim joke is a manifestation of Muslim thinking and feeling about the in-group and various categories of out-groups. For example, the actor Sasha Cohen in the movie Borat makes young muslims laugh by making fun of Israel, despite him being Muslim himself. It would be ridiculous to pretend that none of the people who found Sasha Cohen funny were laughing at him for the wrong reasons. Some would have been laughing at what they took to be his imitation, others at one further remove, were probably laughing at the black parts of his monstrous hybrid. They laughed louder and longer because he revealed it to be alien, eccentric, and absurd in its snobbery, stupidity, and perverse attachment to numerous forms of destructive hierarchy-class, race, religion. Those dismal qualities were not being exposed from the outside by a stranger but explored from the inside in a daring act of patriotic love. That laughter does not intersperse loathing and self-hatred with manic elation. It helps instead to cultivate the everyday, ordinary virtue involved in managing healthier relationships with otherness that are not deformed by fear, anxiety, and violence. The most powerful weapon for creative mind stretching and therefore for reconstruction is humor, especially when it is self-directed rather than outward bound. Humor directed at another serves to break the lifelong habits of a sickly (symbiotic) relationship between people. Self-directed humor is a real mind healer: By flooding the anxious mind with grotesquely exaggerated fears, it banishes phobias and obsessions. In general, it drastically corrects in the mind and in behavior habitual neurotic (self-sabotaging and destructive) patterns. Humor is a technique involves any action one take to cause the proposals, ideas, or values of another to be rejected in favor of own by getting group members to laugh at, ridicule, or scorn the other persons proposals (Duncan, 1990). Rationalization is founded on trust and respect, and if respect is lost, so too is much of power. While power may abhor a vacuum, it equally abhors scorn. Without respect, dominance cannot be maintained. Getting others to laugh at or denigrate in any way the proposals of others that one oppose is another way to exercise power in the organization. Perhaps the ultimate in withdrawal of consent is laughter. Nyberg (1981) proposes that laughter, not revolution, is more common in overthrowing a regime. Authority fears rejection more than any other threat to its legitimacy. Especially in informal organizations, if the leader loses the respect of the fellows he or she is incapable of securing their compliance in even nominal organizational transactions. Humor is a motivated process of communication between living systems with the goal of reaching agreement about certain joint or reciprocal acts. These acts may involve management of conflict, exchange of resources, or cooperation on actions directed at the mutual environment. Behavior within a system is normally regulated by the template of that system. Internal conflict may indicate a need to amend the template. Humor can be used to modify the template so as to remove the source of conflict. For instance, when negotiation occurs between components or subsystems of a system, as in talks to manage conflict between two divisions of a corporation, the resulting humor may modify the template with respect to the roles and required behavior of the divisions. Three general stances facilitate reflexive humor: not-knowing, curious, and collaborative. They provide a way for individuals to explore, express, and share the views and meanings of situations that, otherwise, can drive them apart. Let us examine each in turn. Not-knowing Stance This stance involves taking the nonexpert position of not knowing. Taking this stance encourages humor by levelling the hierarchies of position and knowledge. While hierarchies exist in all organizations, emphasizing them discourages humor; deemphasizing them encourages humor. Reflexive humor emphasizes equal participation rather than hierarchical power, thereby bringing about a shift from hierarchy to collaboration. Humor is characterized by content and relationship aspects. We all are aware of the content aspect of communication the information that a message is intended to convey. The egalitarian ethic of reflexive humor eliminates the positions of hierarchy and power in the humor. A not-knowing stance conveys the message that everyone is equally qualified to generate ideas, opinions, and perspectives about a situation or a problem. This means that the manager enters into the dialogue without any preconceived notions or ideas. The not-knowing stance also encourages listeners to attend to both the â€Å"outer† humor of others as well as to their own â€Å"inner† humor. This egalitarian approach encourages each participant to contribute to the mutual exploration of ideas. Curious Stance The curious stance simply means that one expresses ones ideas in a funny manner. A dogmatic or assertive expression of ideas often hinders the creative process, but a comic mode of expression encourages others to take, leave, or develop ideas at will without vesting or territoriality. This climate encourages the free exchange of ideas on their own merit and without threat of penalty. Taking this stance helps to multiply varying perspectives on a problem and, naturally, leads to an evolved solution. A final advantage is that emergent solutions are usually not only the best thought-out and most fitting but also explored and designed by the individuals who will implement them. Collaborative Stance This stance is the result of the two preceding stances. The shared perspectives, ideas, and meanings contributed by the conversants evolve into common knowledge. This process filters many levels of perceptions and triggers deep involvement among participants making possible the co-construction of a jointly-owned outcome. They bring about better understanding among individuals whose culture and gender may create varying perceptions of the same reality. There is nothing simple about dealing with diversity. Diversity is one of the most complex and refracted areas of management because it involves the intimacy of the self with the impersonality. The first step in implementing reflexive humor in university setting is to form small, voluntary, diverse groups. Participants can come from either the same class or a variety of divisions. There are only two rules for membership in the group commitment and confidentiality. One quickly comes to realize that the premises and stances of reflexive humor are not part of normal communication repertoire. People have learned to function in the hierarchical worlds of home, school, and, the university. In these settings they do not always relate to one another on an egalitarian basis. Much less accepted is the practice of communicating with others, whether colleagues or superiors, from a curious or not-knowing stance. Furthermore, assuming a collaborative stance in their dealings with one another is not an everyday occurrence either. One achieves competence in reflexive humor through learnable skills that require practice. One trains individuals in reflexive humor by introducing each premise and stance and allowing time for practice. The individual being trained acquires the command of one skill before moving on to the next. It may be difficult to begin the training by talking about diversity issues. To create a conducive climate, groups might begin by discussing study-related or other relatively neutral matters because such topics are more familiar and potentially less explosive. Reflexive humor is a general theory that lends itself to any communication context. Therefore, in any setting or on any topic, the process of reflexive humor will evoke multiple points of view and generate mutual self-awareness for the participants. Jointly concentrating on common tasks is an excellent way to begin diversity training. With practice, the process of reflexive humor will engender a sense of trust among its participants. The structure of reflexive humor creates an environment wherein participants can freely exchange their views and, eventually, communicate with one another on deeper and more meaningful levels. Trust and synergy. †¢ Trust reduces the amount of time and energy wasted in suspicion and politics. This time and effort can therefore be better deployed on added-value activities that help to deliver the purpose and vision. †¢ When trust, competence and alignment come together we can achieve synergy, and unlock high performance. †¢ To develop into an attuned team the members of the group have to be able to trust each other. Reflexive humor is a new approach to face-to-face communication. It offers a process by which one can access the uniqueness of each individual as well as each individuals cultural paradigm. Through this approach, individuals can better generate information and co-construct those mutual realities that lead to enhanced problem solving. Reflexive humor is particularly useful to individuals from different cultures who wish to establish a common ground for mutual understanding and action. Humor is not just joking, and management is not just the bloodless supervision of humans in the machine-like achievement of goals. Human emotions and feelings are involved in many issues, especially in culturally diverse settings. The reflection of feeling captures the emotional aspect of human nature. The purpose of this microskill is to identify and make explicit emotions that are often concealed allowing the listener to tune into the speakers emotional experience. While nothing seems more ordinary than to empathize with another, the reflection of feeling has a specific structure. The reflection of feeling informs the speaker that you are aware of his or her emotions. This in turn encourages the speaker to clarify further the issue at hand. The listener needs to be cautious about inaccurately labelling feelings. Adequate time and care must be given to identify the precise feeling correctly. Mislabelling an emotion is a sure sign of misunderstanding the speaker. The reflection of meaning may be the microskill that is most relevant to the diverse workplace. It has to do with how different racial, ethnic, gender, or cultural groups organize life and experiences as well as the meaning they draw from those experiences. This microskill may appear to be very much like the preceding ones of the paraphrase (which restates thoughts) or the reflection of feeling (which reflects emotions). Indeed, the reflection of meaning combines thoughts and meanings. One should remember that both reflecting skills of humor deal with profound issues emotions, values, meanings, and the particular sense each one of us makes of the world. Neither skill should be used insincerely or manipulatively. Inappropriate use can cause as much anger and distrust, on the one hand, as understanding and trust, on the other. However, used ethically, with a sincere attitude, no microskill is more useful, what joke one may make of situation, what values may motivate seemingly culturally different behaviors, or why an action or word that is unimportant (or important) to you may be important (or unimportant) to a colleague. Patterns of eye contact and gaze also play an underestimated role in sense of humor. White males have their own, unique, eye contact patterns. When speaking, a white male looks away from the listener most of the time, making eye contact with the listener to emphasize significant points. While listening, a white male looks at the speaker most of the time. Eye contact indicates that the listener is paying attention to what is being said. Another pattern of eye contact signals the moment when turn-taking occurs for speaker and listener. Generally, when the speaker is nearing the end of a statement, he briefly looks away from the listener. Then, upon finishing the utterance, he reestablishes eye contact to signal that it is the turn of the other person to speak. Major humor problems can result if eye contact patterns are not in synchrony. Without either conversant being consciously aware of it, at appropriate times in the white male style a trustworthy person looks in the eye, while an untrustworthy person does not. If both parties share this pattern, conversation flows smoothly. If the patterns are at odds, one may call the other shifty, while the other may feel uncomfortable. In such a situation, the humor becomes strained, and the participants are conscious of that fact. White males do not seem to employ or recognize the value of nonverbal communication, in general, or of eye contact, in particular. Yet, it is evident that eye contact patterns play a significant role in effective humor. The general white male pattern is for speakers to gaze less at listeners and for listeners to gaze more at speakers. This is how white male listeners demonstrate their intentional listening or attending behavior. One of the most significant characteristics of the Muslim verbal communication style is its oral tradition. Muslims were forcibly transported from traditional societies that were oral. The heritage of orality may be most evident in two areas of the Muslim verbal communication style: the mode of listening, and the importance of expressing feeling during interpersonal interaction. Comparative studies have found that Muslims and whites have different verbal communication styles. Whites tend to make more use of the attending or listening skills in their face-to-face communication by using a forward lean of the upper body or asking open-ended questions. Muslims tend to be more directive by giving advice or confronting. An earlier discussion of microskills noted that open questions are less direct and invite a conversational partner to provide more information on a topic while closed questions tend to retrieve specific pieces of information and limit dialogue. Depending upon the circumstances, each type of question is equally valid. However, a dialogue with predominantly closed questions can take on the tone of an interrogation. Similarly, humor replete with open questions lends a less tenuous tone by giving respondents more room to provide information at their own pace. Therefore, the type of question sets the tone of a conversation. The Muslims expression of feeling may also contrast with white expression of feeling. Whereas emotions may be more openly expressed according to the Muslim humor paradigm, they are more repressed by the mainstream white paradigm. According to the Muslim humor paradigm, one is more congruent when one expresses emotions. According to the norm of the white male humor paradigm, one expresses ones reason and logic dispassionately. For many Muslims, the expression of feeling is crucial to genuine humor between individuals. Therefore, in the Muslim paradigm one is credible when one expresses emotions; one is more credible when emotions are expressed resolutely. Thomas Kochman, scholar of linguistics, holds that one achieves ultimate credibility when logic and affect harmoniously intertwine. Only then can there be congruence between ones thoughts and verbal communication. When one represses thoughts and feelings and expresses only logical thoughts, the discrepancy is likely to emerge through nonverbal behavior, such as moving away or breaking eye contact. The meanings that may be attributed to such incongruencies according to the Muslim communication paradigm may range from deceit or hypocrisy to weakness. The Muslim style of greater and more open expression of feeling can result in behaviors that may seem overly assertive and even confrontational to many whites. In conflictual situations, Muslim nonverbals tend to include loud tones of voice, intense eye contact, and sweeping gestures. Verbally, Muslims may freely express their emotions and, according to Kochman, directly challenge not only facts or ideas but also the individuals who present them. Many may interpret such behaviors as not only confrontational but also preludes to aggression. However, for Muslims the expression of ones mind and spirit only mean being true to oneself. Whether one stands close together or far apart can make people feel more or less comfortable in dealing with one another. Some research indicates that, while conversing, Muslim children tend to stand closer together (Baxter 1973). In her analysis of research on proxemics, Halberstadt found that Muslims tend to stand closer to one another when young but farther apart when older – Muslim primary school children stand closer together than Muslim junior high or high school students. Distances increased still more for Muslim adults. Additional research indicates that Muslim adults tend to greet each other and stand somewhat further apart than other ethnic groups. Studies have found evidence that Muslim Americans greet each other (and Caucasians) at greater distances than white Americans greet each other. A comparative study showed that Muslim Americans interact at the greatest distances, Mexican Americans interact at the closest distances, and white Americans interact at intermediate distances (Baxter 1973). Another study concluded that during interviews whites tend to sit farther away from Muslims than they do from other whites. Humor is particularly significant to Muslims. The heritage of humanism and person-oriented behavior as well as the tendency to express emotions freely inclines some Muslims to be more reliant upon humor. On the basis of her review of the literature, educator Janice Hale-Benson states that Muslims are more proficient than are whites in expressing and detecting emotions. Any sign of understanding what another person has told encourages him or her to say more. Paraphrasing more powerfully encourages continuing the humor and elaborating thoughts resulting in more details about concerns and issues. One paraphrases by restating, in ones own words, the essence of what a colleague has said. Paraphrasing has three specific components: beginning stem; restatement; and concluding, checking stem. Mens body postures tend to convey messages of gender power and dominance rather than of affiliation. Often such kinesic behavior discourages rather than invites humor. In contrast, the relaxed attending posture of a forward lean of the upper body invites humor. Such attending nonverbal humor reflects an individuals openness and willingness to listen and enter into a friendly humor. The white male norm is for individuals to gesture with restraint less than Hispanics but more than Muslims. Wrists and hands are used much more than arms to gesture. Except at times of great joy or sorrow, elbows generally are not raised above shoulder level. Those who gesture more than this norm may be considered flamboyant; individuals who gesture less than this norm may be considered uptight or cold fish. A new approach to managing diversity is necessary. Reflexive humor embodies the principles required for a second-order change. Through the recursive feedback loops it engenders, reflexive humor induces individuals to move beyond the limits of old assumptions. Furthermore, by flattening the hierarchy, its egalitarianism encourages the participation that unfolds to find new and creative solutions. This new approach to humor delineates how individuals can come together to work on constructing mutual realities. The process of reflexive humor establishes commonalities rather than magnifying differences. It provides individuals with the opportunity to come to know one another through a continuous process of mutual interchange. Such an approach inclines to modify subjective meanings and to create the common grounds that are the bases for common understanding. The reflexive process of sharing information creates the recursive loops by which one clarifies and reduces the uncertainties that all have about each other. Therefore, the nature of this change is both organic and evolutionary. The second-order change induced by reflexive humor is not the result of external injunctions by trainers to change ones assumptions about groups, as may have been true of some previous training approaches. Rather, the change produced by humor is the result of a volitional, egalitarian, and mutually-induced process. The continuous interchange of humor creates the fertile ground where individuals studying together co-create solutions of a second-order change. This change emanates from newly-developed assumptions based on newly-generated realities. In effect, humor induces greater convergence in the thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, and meanings of the individuals who engage in it. As Johns Hopkins linguist Lawrence Kincaid puts it, an effective humor logically leads to the â€Å"state of greater uniformity, or the successive reduction of diversity† (Lawrence 1988). Thus, applying humor in the diverse society can lead to a place where the construction of new realities is possible. This is where cultural issues and cultural differences meld, and a new reality ensues as a result of the information-sharing process. Hence, myths about differences begin to diminish and common realities begin to evolve. From these emerge the common ground, the convergence that is essential for the shared understanding that common action requires. Humor is the missing link of diversity training. It is the second-order process by which individuals can mutually change themselves and each other according to their own pace and direction. Humor is perhaps the least tangible aspect of organizational life, but it seems to have very powerful and tangible effects on people from different cultures. In a high energy atmosphere one can sense peoples excitement just by watching the way they move, the way they interact and go about their business, and even the expressions on their faces. When one walks out of a very positive atmosphere, one wants to go back. If the atmosphere is stifling, unwelcoming, filled with tension, and not much fun, then one does not want to return. If the place happens to be ones workplace, the effect can be very powerful. The microskills are specific tools that enhance the humor process. They are relatively easy to learn. The skills are best learned oneat-a-time. Following the presentation and discussion, practice provides a hands-on approach to the mastery of each skill. As one gains proficiency in one skill, another is added and practiced simultaneously. Thus, each remaining skill is added until the complete set of microskills has been acquired. The key to proficiency with the microskills is practice. While these skills are easy to comprehend and implement individually, making them part of students’ everyday behavior may not be as easy. Only through continued conscious effort in using and practicing the skills can we successfully make them part of our behavioral repertoire. They are skills that can be applied to any life setting to enhance understanding of one another and, hence, relationships. References Baxter C. ( 1973). â€Å"Interpersonal spacing in two-person cross-cultural interactions†. Man-Environment Systems, 3. D. Lawrence Kincaid. (1988). The convergence theory and intercultural communication. In Young Yun Kim William B. Gundykunst (Eds. ), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Howe, Susan E. S. (1994). â€Å"Exploring New Leadership Styles. † Pennsylvania CPA Journal 65, no. 1. Nyberg, David. (1981). Power Over Power. Ithaca, N. Y. : Cornell University Press. Thomas Kochman. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shakespere on Management Essay -- William Shakespeare Plays Essays

Shakespeare on Management I never knew that Shakespeare had to do with management, but after reading this book it made me realize the true importance of being a manager, and the way that real managers act toward their employees. I used to think that Management was just about giving orders and keeping the business on track but after reading this book I recognized that there is a lot more to management than that. Shakespeare wrote plays that were full of contradiction and ambiguity. He chose many different dramatic ways of building ambiguity into his plays. He used strong characters, fools, and scoundrels to give his leaders different messages. The world of Management also has its ambiguities, and when it doesn’t recognize this it fails. What managers can learn from this book is that there are people who have similar problems to ours and we can learn from their experience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Every book argues that without leadership, managers and businesses will fail, along with the idea that leadership is the quality that is missing every day of real managers. Shakespeare’s characters demonstrated different ways that leadership could be provided. Until the sixteenth century, almost everybody believed that leaders were born and not made. Shakespeare argued about this point of view. Some of the leaders that he created failed because they based their power on the fact that they were born to be leaders.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Shakespeare’s (Peter and Waterman, 1982: 75) the point that Peter’s is trying to make is that great leaders make meanings for their staff, which means that they provide their staff with the importance of communicating motivation. In Shakespeare’s Henry the fifth’s speech during the battle of Harfleur. They are in a war with the French, but the French has a strong defense and Henry’s troops start giving up. Henry makes a speech to them that truly gives an example of leadership. â€Å"Once more unto the breach, dear friends once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ On on, you noblest English, Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn til even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument; Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ For there is none of you so mean and base, That hath not noble luster in your eyes. ... ...p Peters contains a warning to all managers, disagreeing that if you don’t succeed in paying attention to the little people, you will fail because sooner or later, they will get you back. They have the power to stop even the greatest leaders. I think Shakespeare really believes this, it shows through his plays how he has leaders listen to people and how he gives the little people strong characters. The reason that both Shakespeare and Tom Peters give for managers to listen to the little people is not only because it is of good morals for managers to do so but also because it is necessary in order to run a company.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Shakespeare’s plays the consequences of poor leadership are almost predictable: heads roll, people fall on their swords, bodies fall to the stage. Although the outcome isn’t as severe for most managers, many leaders still make the mistake of becoming â€Å"royal leaders† when that’s not the role they should be playing. In Shakespeare’s plays, as the author plainly demonstrates, successful leadership is not the result of just being born to do it. Throughout his plays, the most successful leaders are those who earn their position and the respect of those around them.

Ealry Film :: essays papers

Ealry Film Being able to capture motion has occupied the human psyche sine primitive times. This is evident through the Lascaux cave paintings which depict buffalo with multiple legs in a attempt to represent the animal running. Other simple innovations also led to the motion picture, these ‘optical toys’ demonstrated the eye’s persistence of vision. These ‘toys’ grew more advanced, but lifelike motion could not be achieved until the photographic process was nearly perfected. In the 1870’s Eadweard Muybridge was successful in capturing the complete motion of a horse galloping. This was the first step in bringing pictures to life. The next invention came from a Rev. Hannibal Goodwin, who devised a thin, flexible, plastic base he called celluloid, on which could be put photosensitive material. George Eastman was the first to market this celluloid film, and in 1890 Thomas Edison and William Dicksom successfully tested the Kinescope. The first motion picture captured and copyrighted on this Kinescope was titled â€Å"The Sneeze†, which is simply a man sneezing. Edison continued to make short films in his studio, nicknamed the Black Maria. His shorts usually were comprised of people performing vaudeville acts as a form of sideshow attraction. These films would be viewed in Kinescope parlors, from large wooden boxes with a eyepiece on top. On the other side of the Atlantic, in France, the Lumieres brothers improve on Edisons Kinescope, and create the Cinematograph, a smaller more portable camera, that can film and view motion pictures. With this new Cinematograph, the Lumieres brothers were able to film and then project the product for an audience. They filmed what was around them, daily life for upper-middle class Europeans, their first was a whole group of people leaving a factory at the end of a work day. Simple, but for its time it was amazing, seeing live people walking around and moving just as they normally would, but on a big screen! These types of films became the Lumieres trademark, slice of life documentary work that would be shown in front of audiences. One of the Lumieres films: Arrival of a Train in the Cioat Station, was a train coming straight for the camera on an angle, that terrified the viewers. Edison continued to make films, under his own, controlled conditions. Although both Edison and the Lumieres, saw the motion picture as nothing more than a sideshow act and both filmed very documentary-esque work, each had their own criteria for filming.

Greek Mythology and Medea Essay

Medea – Protagonist of the play, Medea’s homeland is Colchis, an island in the Black Sea, which the Greeks considered the edge of the earth–a territory of barbarians. A sorceress and a princess, she used her powers and influence to help Jason secure the Golden Fleece; then, having fallen in love with him, she fled her country and family to live with Jason in Iolcus, his own home. During the escape across the Mediterranean, she killed her brother and dumped him overboard, so that her pursuers would have to slow down and bury him. While in Iolcus, she again used her devilish cleverness to manipulate the daughters of the local king and rival, Pelias, into murdering their own father. Exiled as murderers, Jason and Medea settled in Corinth, the setting of Euripides’ play, where they established a family of two children and gained a favorable reputation. All this precedes the action of the play, which opens with Jason having divorced Medea and taken up with a new family. The play charts Medea’s emotional transformation, a progression from suicidal despair to sadistic fury. She eventually avenges Jason’s betrayal with a series of murders, concluding with the deaths of her own children. Famously, the pleasure of watching Jason suffer their loss outweighed her own remorse at killing them. Jason – Jason can be considered the play’s villain, though his evil stems more from weakness than strength. A former adventurer, he abandons his wife, Medea, in order to marry Glauce, the beautiful young daughter of Creon, King of Corinth. Hoping to advance his station through this second marriage, he only fuels Medea to a revenge that includes the deaths of his new bride, her father, and his children. Jason’s tactless self-interest and whiny rationalizations of his own actions make him a weak, unsympathetic character. Children – The offspring of Jason and Medea, the children are presented as naive and oblivious to the intrigue that surrounds them. Medea uses them as pawns in the murder of Glauce and Creon, and then kills them in the play’s culminating horror. Their innocent deaths provide the greatest element of pathos–the tragic emotion of pity–in the play. Chorus – Composed of the women of Corinth, the chorus chiefly serves as a commentator to the action, although it occasionally engages directly in the dialogue. The chorus members fully sympathize with Medea’s plight, excepting her eventual decision to murder her own children. Creon – The King of Corinth, Creon banishes Medea from the city. Although a minor character, Creon’s suicidal embrace of his dying daughter provides one of the play’s most dramatic moments, and his sentence against Medea lends an urgency to her plans for revenge. Glauce – Daughter of Creon, Glauce is the young, beautiful princess for whom Jason abandons Medea. Her acceptance of the poisoned coronet and dress as â€Å"gifts† leads to the first murder of the play. Although she never utters a word, Glauce’s presence is constantly felt as an object of Medea’s jealousy. (Glauce is also referred to as Creusa. ) Aegeus – The King of Athens, Aegeus passes through Corinth after having visited the Oracle at Delphi, where he sought a cure for his sterility. Medea offers him some fertility-inducing drugs in exchange for sanctuary in Athens. His appearance marks a turning point in the play, for Medea moves from being a passive victim to an aggressor after she secures his promise of sanctuary. Messenger – The messenger appears only once in the play–he relates in gruesome, vivid detail the death scenes of Glauce and Creon, which occur offstage. Nurse – Caretaker of the house, the nurse of the children serves as Medea’s confidant. Her presence is mainly felt in the play’s opening lament and in a few speeches addressing diverse subjects not entirely related to the action of the play. Tutor – A very minor character, the tutor of the children mainly acts as a messenger, as well as the person responsible for shuffling the children around from place to place

Presidential Speech Essay

In Barrack Obama’s Second Inaugural Address he mentioned how he wants to improve the United States by having better education, having woman’s right, gay rights, virtue programs for the retired and disabled, the importance of tackling global warming, and immigration reform. In the speech he gave he talked about what brings this country together is not the race or beliefs of people but the idea articulated in the declaration of independence and how the founding fathers of this country did not mean to become deprived by the constitution and that patriotism was not the preserve of the right. After everything that has happened in this country we are recovering, our future is looking brighter. He wants to grow government in order to remake our country along his progressive vision. He also wants to increase our taxes instead of reforming medicare and social security. This speech is also about how the ones who died in the army or in 9/11 are the ones who have paid for our freedom we have in this country. Everyone in the United States is given a chance to succeed, no matter how poor they may be because they are an American and we are free and equal. This speech is also about how we should be aware of those who want to harm us and do bad and show courage and defend each other peacefully. He believes equal pay for women, equality under the law for gays,voting rights, immigration reforms and higher employments are the keys to further America’s journey towards its highest ideals. He promise to further the journey as part of his oath and asked for us to accomplish the same oath. He also promised to keep existing alliances strong, emphasized the end of wars and the economic recovery. Obama’s second Inaugural Address took place on the national day that celebrates the civil rights leader, Martin Luther king Jr. In his speech he had mention â€Å"we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half slave and half free.† Obama’s Inauguration theme was â€Å"Faith in America’s Future† which was about the 150th anniversary on Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation, this was when Abraham Lincoln announced slavery illegal and wanted equal rights for everyone. I think the speech Barrack Obama gave was good and bad at the same time  because he probably lost a lot of people when he mention the gay rights and immigration reform. But also gained some votes from the Hispanics and young adults because young people accept gay rights than most of the country. I think he does make a point in wanting to pass the pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants instead of mass deportation because a lot of people come to the united states to find a better future for their children. Those immigrants see this country as a land of opportunity. Since Barrack Obama gave this speech, nothing has really occurred ,other than Obama’s residential order which is similar to the dream act. The people who qualify for this must be between the ages 12-35,arrived in the United States before the age of 16, lived in the United States for at least 5 years, and have graduated a highs school and obtained their diploma or GED. This allows a dreamer to get their work permit for two years, and a driver’s license. Even though immigration reforms are not passing and are having issues with it, it is moving forward.

Hitler’s Life and what he did Essay

Adolf Hitler was a German politician who was born in Austria. He fought for the German army during the First World War, becoming one of the most decorated veterans. After the war, he joined a political movement that was later to become the infamous Nazi Party (Kershaw 5). That was in the year 1919; and by the year 1921, he had become the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, abbreviated as NASDAP or simply the DAP from its German name (Giblin 52). Adolf Hitler was later to become a very instrumental figure during the build-up to the Second World War, and during the war itself. He is remembered in bad faith as one of the main architects of the holocaust. In this paper, I aim to discuss his life in detail and how his rise to power influenced world affairs. Early Life Adolf Hitler was born in a town known as Braunau-am-inn in Austria near the German border to Alois, a customs officer and Klara on the 20th of April, 1889 (Kershaw 5). At the age of six, he was already attending school around the town of Linz, which is located to the east of his birthplace. Hitler’s performance in school was however pathetic, and this forced him to abandon school without completing his courses with the ambition of becoming an artist (Kershaw 6). Between the ages 16 and 18, Hitler did not have any employment. He solely depended on his mother for his upkeep since his father Alois had died when Adolf was merely thirteen; but at eighteen years, he had acquired a keen interest in politics and managed to successfully apply for admission at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts (Kershaw 7). Adolf Hitler the Orphan When Adolf Hitler was 19 years old, his mother died of cancer (Kershaw 9). He had no relatives either able or willing to support him; and his predicament prompted him to move to Vienna hoping that he would somehow manage to make ends meet. That was in the year 1909; and in Vienna, things did not go so well for the young vagrant. Within a year, he was sleeping in shelters for the homeless (Kershaw 9). He had vehemently refused to accept any form of regular employment but readily took up any menial jobs that would come his way and also sold some of his paintings so that he could provide himself with subsistence. Adolf Hitler in the First World War By the year 1913, Adolf Hitler was still homeless and broke. In the hope of bettering his life, he moved to Munich, Southern Germany (Welch 5). This relocation coincided with the outbreak of the First World War that broke out in 1914. Adolf Hitler volunteered to serve in the German military and was accepted into the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regimen (Welch 31). His tenure into service of the state had officially begun, and no one could imagine that he would once rise to lead his nation into war against the world. During the course of the war, Adolf Hitler fought so bravely that he became widely recognized. He was duly promoted into Corporal, getting decorated with the military honors of the Iron Cross Second Class and the Iron Cross First Class (Giblin 54). He wore the latter up o until the day he died; but the irony was that the officer who recommended him for the second award was a Jewish regimental, a race he was going to persecute severely after his rise to power. In 1981, he was temporarily blinded by a gas attack orchestrated by the British. He however made a quick recovery and returned to his regiment, based in Munich, in December 1918. Adolf Hitler Ventures into Politics (Welch 24) Adolf had his first stint in politics between December 1918 and March 1919 while he was working at a camp for prisoners of war before returning back to his regiment in Munich (Housden 66). After his return, he witnessed an incident in which local communists attempted to take over political authority before the army effectively quashed their attempt. During the proceedings of an investigation, which was established to inquire into the incident, Adolf Hitler was called in as a witness. Afterwards, he was appointed into a local organization within the army whose function was to persuade soldiers who were returning from the war not to convert into either communism or pacifism (Housden 67). While serving in the organization, Hitler greatly developed his oratory skills. His job description also involved him conducting espionage activities on some political groups, which were mushrooming in the background of the Munich political scene (Welch 41). One day, he attended a meeting organized by the German Workers’ Party and when one of the members stood to deliver a keynote address, Adolf Hitler was so infuriated that he burst out, delivering a charged harangue to the speaker. The founder of the German Workers’ Party, Mr. Anion Drexler, was so impressed with Hitler’s outburst that he spontaneously asked him to join their party. Hitler, though hesitant at first, agreed to join the organization and became its seventh official in the September of 1919 (Welch 41). Hitler became a vocal official of the German Workers’ party and addressed a crowd of over two thousand people in Hofbrauhaus, Munich in February 1920 where he managed to get the attention of the people (Welch 41) . Leader of the Nazi Party Involvement with the DAP meant that Adolf was discharged from the army. He then engaged into an extensive campaign increasing his influence inside the party, raising funds for its mechanisms and winning in supporters and sympathizers (Hauner 32). He increased the strength of the Nazi party and even attempted to overthrow the government. In the melee, he and other leaders of the National Socialist German Workers Party, which was now the name of the Germany Workers’ Party, were arrested and detained. Upon his release after six months in Jail, the mechanism of the Nazi party had been crippled. Hitler himself found out that he had been banned from delivering any public speeches. However, the great depression in the mid-1920s brought a new opportunity for Hitler and his party to convince the people of Germany. He participated in the 1932 election but lost, even though the winner of the election did not last long owing to external pressure (Housden 71). Adolf Hitler’s party formed a coalition after securing a parliamentary majority and used their bargaining power to prevent the formation of any other government until Adolf Hitler was named chancellor in 1933 (Kershaw 17). Having secured the highest political seat in the nation, Adolf proceeded to consolidate his grip by convincing the German people that he was their savior from the economic woes external aggression and other undesirable minorities. He and the Nazi party eliminated opposition to their rule. Hitler and the Build-up to the Second World War  The Nazi regime immediately embraced aggression as a foreign policy to stamp its authority in the world. It formed alliances that were later to group nations during the war. Adolf denounced the treaty of Versailles and made an alliance with Austria. In international peace forums, Hitler would preach peace and claim that the destruction of the First World War made Germany need a lot of time before she could be in a position to re-arm for war; but back home, he placed priority in military armament (Victor 59). He could not even allow funds to be diverted to creating employment if his military budget was not satisfied. It is this arms race that was later to lead to the greatest war mankind had ever known, the Second World War. Hitler and the Holocaust Hitler embraced a philosophy known as racial hygiene that was based on the concept of racial purity under which all â€Å"life unworthy of life† was to be exterminated from the face of the earth (Victor 63). Through a program named Action T4, he ordered for the killing of all children with developmental and physical disabilities. These were his first victims. Because of public outcry, Hitler created an impression that the killings had been stopped, but in a period spanning six years from 1939, between 11 and 14 million people were killed (Hauner 71). Among these were six million Jews. Many victims died from diseases and starvation while enslaved in national and private German ventures while others were either gassed or burned. Among the Jews, other population groups targeted in the holocaust were political opponents, gays and lesbians, the physically disabled and mentally retarded, trade unionists and psychiatric patients.