Book Review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 5

Book Review - Essay Example Huff then explicates how the reader can see through the smoke and to get to what really lies behind the mirror. "There is terror in numbers," writes Darrell Huff. His book aims to decipher the terror that lies beneath the world of averages, trends, graphs, and correlations. Huff sought to break through "the daze that follows the collision of statistics with the human mind.† The book remains relevant as an awakening for people unacquainted to delve deeper into the nonstop flow of numbers pouring from Madison Avenue, Wall Street, and everywhere else; where someone has a point to prove, a product to sell or an axe to grind. Darrell Huff investigates the breadth of every popularly used type of statistic, explores such things as the tabulation method, the interview technique, the sample study, or the way the outcomes are derived from the figures, and points up the infinite number of dodges which are used to deceive rather than inform. "The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify," warns Huff. On t he other hand, he said that we should not be terrorized by numbers. "The fact is that, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science." Synonymous to a lecturing father, he expects you to learn and ponder on something valuable from the book, and start applying it every day. Never be a sucker again, he cries! Seeing graphs illustrating numbers if properly done are very helpful in interpreting and analyzing data. And yet, truly deceiving if completed in a fishy fashion If you want to show statistical data, clearly and quickly. Draw a picture of it. When a graph is constructed with a y-axis that is numbered from 1 to 100 without skipping a unit, Huff explained, "Your ten percent looks like ten percent—an upward trend that is substantial but perhaps not overwhelming. That is very

An analysis of the main character Lt. Henry in A Farewell to Arms Essay

An analysis of the main character Lt. Henry in A Farewell to Arms - Essay Example Lieutenant Frederic Henry is a young American who feels a strong obligation to serving the Italian army, but seldom finds himself without enjoyment. He interprets himself as a man of duty. The experience on the battlefront does not modify his self belief or feeing of honor; nor does he expect any praise for his services as a soldier. During duties in the war, Henry is seriously wounded on the battlefield and sent to the hospital in Milan for knee operation. His friend Rinaldi criticizes him for his injury and the medals of distinction that Henry may receive. Rinaldi stated, â€Å"You will be decorated. They want to get you the medaglia d’argento but perhaps they can get only the bronze.† Henry said, â€Å"What for?† Rinaldi replied, â€Å"Because you are gravely wounded†¦. Did you do any heroic act?† Henry’s frustration with his friend insisting on lobbying for a medal goes without notice, â€Å"No†¦ I was blown up while we were eating ch eese† (63). This clearly shows how Henry distances himself from nonfigurative thinking as faith, honor, and patriotism and also displays the spirit of his personality. During his recovery in the hospital, he feels very fortunate that Miss Barkley is transferred to Milan, and allowed to be by his side. During this time of healing, Henry and Catherine’s love blossoms causing him to stay with her and not return to battle. Catherine’s feelings are so strong for Henry that she considers their relationship to be a feeling above all belief, â€Å"You see, darling, it would mean everything to me if I had any religion. But I haven’t any religion†¦ You’re my religion; you’re all I’ve got† (116). This relationship is seemed to be surprising for the fact he barely knew her and much like his friend, Rinaldi, who forever longed for a night’s simple pleasures. Unaccustomed to such feeling of love and desire, Henry realizes that this new feeling is

Policy Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Policy - Assignment Example The consideration was mainly for the couple that needed child and the child’s welfare was never the main issue. This has since changed and today and therefore during an adoption process the main issue that must be addressed is the welfare of the child. Despite there being corruption here and there that may hinder the due process of adoption to unwind, the environment of today tries to make adoption to be able to focus on how comfortable the child is going be during after he has been placed in the hands of adoptive parents (VanderMolen, 2005).. In this regard, unlike in the early years when the adoption of a child was almost like accounting the child to the highest bidder, what matters today is that the family or individual willing to adopt a child has to show that they will be able to provide the child with a viable environment in which to grow. They must show that they are not only financially capable to provide for the child but that they are also emotionally stable to give the child the emotional needs he or she requires in order to develop well from childhood to adulthood. This has also meant that the process of adoption is a long one and it is not a one day process. Anyone willing to adopt a child today must be willing to take a lengthy process that will finally determine if they are qualified. I also learn that adoption has also changed in other ways. For instance, during the inception of adoption, adoption was mainly for couples who did not have the biological ability to have their own children. Today, even a single individual can adopt a child and so they do not have to be a married couple. Even untraditional couples such as in gay marriages can adopt a child, but that depends on the state from which they come because some states do not allow gay marriages and so this would be a precedence to determine if the state will allow them to adopt a

Interview with a human resource manager Essay Example for Free

Interview with a human resource manager Essay Many organizations build human resource management section separately so that an expert service is provided to the people and the human resource function performed efficiently. These organizations consider people as their most priceless assets and so they need managers in this section who are efficient, responsible and devoted to the rules and regulations of the respective organization. For this they need a capable person who can cover up the responsibilities excellently and help in further development of the organization. Different organizations have varied expectations from the candidate and the ecruitment is done according to the requirements of the company. It depends upon the size of the company, the physical nature of the products, the size of the staff members, its functions, aims and complexities that decide what exactly is expected from a human resource department. A human resource manager has to keep a balance between the employer and the employees. He has to act as an advocate for both, the organization and the people who work for it. Only one or two decades ago the human resource manager was associated with personnel and administrative division of the company and mostly confined to some aper work. They had to deal with hiring of the employees for different sections of the company, paying them and dealing mostly with their benefits. But today most of the organizations are customer centered and are becoming more adaptable to changes needed for successful marketing strategy. So the responsibilities of today’s human resource manager is to take care of customer satisfaction and make specific changes considering success in marketing along with taking care of the benefits of the employees, payroll and do some paper work as well. The HR manager has to be very attentive and cautious with ny and every change that is taking place in the marketing policy. With the globalization of small and big businesses, it seems that the development of an organization depends quite a lot on the human resource manager and so he is answerable to almost every aspect of marketing and customer satisfaction section. This includes a lot of work pressure, which burdens the professionals a lot. Almost every human resource manager is suffering form this problem and feels the pressure from various directions. They have to discuss the matters and the targets need to be achieved in imited time and above all be updated with the latest in marketing strategy. Those who are interested in regular competition and want to progress fast can try and make human resource manager a career but I feel that with so much of work pressure a man will have to sacrifice a lot in life just to satisfy his ego and earn success and new heights in monetary section. With flexible working hours the manager has to sacrifice various aspects of recreation and relaxation with family and friends. With stress and conflicts in the organization, the human resource manager needs to take care of it before it does any harm to the organization. He needs to be like a team leader and convince the employees with the views of the management and vice versa. Open communication and discussion helps a lot and the manager balances if there is any aggressive attitude in the employees. The only thing that I work out from the interview with a human resource manager is that the job satisfies people who are very ambitious and enthusiastic. It is not that the job or its responsibilities are not reachable. Some managers find it very challenging and like to work in a competitive environment so that the charm of life and work remains there for them.

Kant And Mill Ethical Theories Philosophy Essay

Kant And Mill Ethical Theories Philosophy Essay John Mills Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kants Fundamental Principle of the Metaphysic of Morality present the two philosophers divergent views on the field of moral philosophy. Mills Utilitarianism is a more refined ethical theory compared to Kants breakdown of the metaphysics and its use in proving what is right and what is wrong. Kant employs his corroboration of the subsistence of metaphysics as a discipline in his ethical philosophy. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦if a law is to have moral force, i.e., to be the basis of an obligation, it must carry with it absolute necessity. (Kant preface). This dictum forms the base for Kants ethical theory. Mill disputes Kants assertion that our moral force must be driven by an obligation. Instead, Mill argues that humans are driven by a desire to be happy. Immanuel Kant utilized practical reasoning in his moral theory and suggests that there exists only one moral obligation; categorical imperative. He states, Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant second section). This obligation is derived from the notion of duty, and describes the categorical imperatives as the demands of moral decree, and further emphasizes that an individuals behavior ought to live up to the moral laws. These categorical imperatives should be the constitution governing all men; they should be the principles of human life. Kant argues that all ethical duties inherently expected of humans stem from these categorical imperatives, and it systematically follows that human obligations are put to the test. He goes on to state that employing these imperatives, an individual regarded as rational could be able to achieve specific ends using certain means. Kants categorical imperative forms the basis of the deontological ethics. The fundamental principle of the metaphysics of morals postulates that moral law is a base or foundation of reason in itself and it does not have to be influenced by other contingent factors. The biggest flaw of Kants moral theory is that it fails to mention the role of human desire in the choices individuals make. Kant theory succeeds only in highlighting moral versus immoral human actions, and specifically makes it easier in making choices that exclusively involves evil versus good. It does not provide insight into what an individual should do in case he or she is faced by two evils, a nd he or she has to make a choice between the two. For instance, what does one do when faced with the exclusive choices of either lying or killing? Mills ethical theory offers an insight. Mills utilitarian ethical theory provides a rule that illuminates this quandary. Utilitarian theory supports Machiavellis the end justifies the means; according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality (Mill ch II). The greatest happiness principle proposes that humans should inherently choose the option that gives them the most happiness. Mill constructs a world where the happiness of humans is judged. Mill believes that the best happiness is achieved when everyone is happy; the absence of suffering and pain. He believes that true happiness must be moral or intellectual in nature. Physical happiness does not qualify as true happiness. Happiness is greater than feeling of contentment. Mill talks of different forms of happiness, high and low happiness. When an individual experiences both forms of happiness, he or she develops a preference of one over the other. Mill opines that simple pleasures are preferred by individuals who have not experienced greater ones. Nevertheless, he still holds that higher pleasures are really valued. Because happiness predetermines human desires, it is only logical that our actions are determined by will; will to be happy. Mill however posits that the realization of human desire can at times be subjective to the will of an individual or an individuals habit. Mills utilitarian therefore covers more on human motives as compared to mere indulgence. Every intrinsic human desire is a derivative of elementary human desires to be happy or achieve gratification. Sometimes the pursuit of basic human pleasures may result in pain as a result of sacrifices humans consciously or subliminally make. Such sacrifices for the sake of happiness in the en d are fully justified. A significant difference between Mill and Kant, based on the two writings, is the gradation of ethics. Under Kants metaphysics of science, an individual can be regarded as morally upright while still being selfish. Under Mills utilitarian, an individual cannot be morally right if he or she is selfish since Mills ethical theory requires humans to extend happiness to others. All honour to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life, when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world (Mill ch II). Kant negates the utilitarian idea by stating that there exists a divergence between desires and ethics and that contemplations of human rights temper estimations of cumulative utility. Kant holds that everything in existence possesses a price or a dignity. He adds that whatever possesses a price can be easily replaced by something else of the similar value as it, but whatever has a dignity can never be replaced. Both philosophers have deep thought on the issue of morality. Mill has his thoughts based on utilitarian grounds, which is an elaborate system that revolves around happiness of people. It hypothesizes that an individual ought to act in a way that ensures the happiness of those around them. Kant has his philosophy of giving morality a good versus bad angle. He, on the other hand, hypothesizes that reasoning and human nature should be the determinants of morality and not human desires. Morality is the root of human interaction and without it, humans would not discern right from wrong. Morality is very important but between the two philosophers John Mill offers an upgraded version of ethical philosophy that is more elaborate and practical.

Like A Virgin.. Or Not :: essays research papers fc

Like a Virgin†¦or not   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Madonna had always been a holy icon until the early 1980’s when the name â€Å"Madonna† developed a dual connotation. The introduction of America’s top female sex symbol Madonna created an image far opposite of the previously known hallowed one. In John Fiske’s essay â€Å"Madonna,† he depicts the singer’s character, portraying her as socially and semiotically powerful. Although his essay is currently outdated, Fiske illustrates an illusion of Madonna that Generation Xers eventually accepted and will probably never forget.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Sex has always been a controversial matter in American society. Before the 1980’s, those that openly articulated their views about sex were thought of as promiscuous and perverse, unless they were male. Perhaps, that is why the aura of Madonna stirred raving controversy across America. Fiske notes that her image was not a â€Å"model meaning for young girls in patriarchy, but a site of semiotic struggle between the forces of patriarchal control and feminine resistance, of capitalism and the subordinate, of the adult and the young (Fiske 282).† Never before had a woman presented herself so provocatively yet so comfortably.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the beginning, Madonna ultimately sacrificed sexual purity. Her daring exploitation of sex from a feminine point of view was definitely a breakthrough in 1980’s American society. Often, she dressed like a man and grabbed herself in â€Å"sacred† and â€Å"unseen† places. Actions like these, as Fiske points out, presented a threat but â€Å"not the traditional and easily contained one of woman as a whore but the more radical one of woman as independent of masculinity (Fiske 284).† Young girls regarded her actions not as â€Å"tarty† or â€Å"seductive† but as completely â€Å"acceptable.† Eventually, they embraced her image and strived to follow her example of the independent and sexually licentious woman (Fiske 283). Society has finally accepted feminine independence and accredited Madonna as the pioneer for introducing that autonomy. In many ways, she now represents the woman’s metamorphosis. As Fiske noted she began by showing â€Å"both her pleasure in her own physicality and the fun she finds (found) in admitting and expressing pleasure: it is (was) a sexual-physical pleasure that has (had) nothing to do with men†¦(Fiske 285).† While this may have been an impression of Madonna in the 1980’s, she has evolved into what society deems as the epitome of badass woman: utterly independent. Fiske’s essay does not really have much application to the perception of Madonna in today’s society.

How does Shakespeare present conflict at the start of Romeo and Juliet Essay

Explain how Shakespeare presents the theme of violence in this part of the play. The first thing to note about this scene is that it takes place right at the start of the play. I think that this scene exists to set up and highlight one of the key conflicts in the play as a whole. It takes place after a serious fight between the Montagues and Capulets. This fight’s prime instigator is Tybalt who when asked by Benvollio to help him keep the peace says: â€Å"What drawn and talk of peace. I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee: Have at thee, coward!† Clearly then this is a deep seated conflict that is responsible for disturbing the peace in Verona and it is the Prince’s job to restore order in this scene. Therefore right at the start of the scene he calls them ‘profaners’. This is very emotive language and helps to underline the Prince’s contempt for both of the families and their conflict. The audience when they hear language like this will then associate both families as being not being very religious and being opposed to God and His purposes. The contempt that the Prince and the audience is supposed to feel for both of the fighting families is further emphasised in the description of their swords as ‘neighbor-stained steel’. Clearly what the Prince is trying to highlight here is that both families are behaving in a very selfish immature way and are showing an unchristian regard for their neighbours. Therefore violence is shown in this scene as being something that is pointless, stupid and going against God. Following on from this the theme of violence is further emphasised through the Prince’s use of a rhetorical question: â€Å"Will they not hear?† I think that Shakespeare deliberately uses this technique here to demonstrate how unthinking both families are in their hatred for each other. It is clear that the hatred between them runs so deep that they cannot and will not listen to people who are trying to mediate between them and trying to keep the peace. This is further emphasised later on in the line by the Prince describing them as ‘beasts’. I think that Shakespeare deliberately uses this word to help emphasise just how nasty the violence between both families are. A beast is an animal. Therefore, to the Prince, the unthinking violence between them has gone so far as to take away their humanity. Again in the next line Shakespeare has further emphasised the Prince’s dislike and animosity towards both families and even how fed up he is with their constant quarrelling by using the emotive language of: â€Å"your pernicious rage’ This helps to underline that to the Prince it is both families’ actions that are having a harmful effect on his city and that they are gradually being very destructive through their actions. According to the Prince the only thing that will help to cool the men’s emotions down and will stop all the violence is: â€Å"purple fountains issuing from your veins† What the Prince means here is that only by the men’s spilt blood will they calm down. This does not seem like an effective way to keep the peace and helps to show that for some reason violence has become a way of life for the people involved the quarrel. What is the cause of all this violence the audience would naturally ask at this point in the speech? It is clear that, according to the Prince, that the cause of most of the violence is merely an ‘airy word’. The connotations of ‘airy’ are something that is unsubstantial, something that is barely even there. Therefore the portrayal of violence in this part of the play by Shakespeare is of actions that don’t have a cause, that are incre4dibly harmful and don’t seem to be about anything much in particular. Surely then we as the audience will slightly sympathise with the Prince and his role to help keep the peace. This can be seen later on in the play when Tybalt gets into a fight with Mercutio. One of the key moments in the play is when Tybalt says: â€Å"Mercutio thou consort’st with Romeo† This could be seen as being just friendly ‘banter’ however to both families it is seemingly jokey things people say to each other take on huge significance. For me then these ‘airy words’ have a huge impact because the strong sense of pride these characters have and how they are unable to let things slide. I think this helps to underline what I think is the big lesson that Shakespeare is trying to teach us about violence in the play and that is that is that violence is often seen by people who are not taking part or who are innocent bystanders as being pointless and damaging.