The Importance Of Safety In The Workplace Construction Essay

The Importance Of Safety In The Workplace Construction Essay Safety, health and environment are important thing in our workplace. This is the top priority in every workplace. Something must need to be done to encourage employees, employer and industries to put safety, health and environment at the top of their agenda. The most important thing is our commitment in taking the action and our commitment to take suitable changes to ensure that safety, health and environment is forefront of everyones thinking. Thus, the objective of this topic is to know how engineers can contribute in the awareness of safety, health and environment. In addition, an engineer also must always keep abreast with development in order to be a successful engineer in all aspects. II.METHODOLOGY Methodology used in preparing the report (do the work) are do research on the selected titles, collecting the data, interpreting the data, and finding the suitable case of study as the example. III.DISCUSSION This part of report will discuss about the theory, concept and explanation on contributions of engineer in safety, health and environment. The ethics on safety We were also discussing the ways of an engineer can keep abreast with the development of technologies without confining any other discipline . i.Contribution in safety Safety is priority thing in workplace. We need to ensure that safety in workplace because to minimize the risk of accident occur [1]. Every employee has their own role to make sure that nothing happened when doing the task. When something occurs, the companies need to use a lot of money either in new design or pay the money to the victims. There are many ways how to contribute awareness in safety. One of them is engineer need to participate in design state [2]. With this way, engineer will know the problem in their design. Problem in the design will be found during the testing design. With this testing design, engineer can solve or upgrade their design. Other than that, enforcement snag should be carried out continuously. In order to prevent workers from repeating their false, they need to be penalized. If it involves serious case, they need to be charge in court. However, some people state that this is not proper way to encourage them to become a good worker. Serious enforcement and inspection has to be made especially for high rise projects. This is to ensure that all workers ensure that the equipment and structures at workplace would not pose a danger to the workers themselves and the public. Perhaps in the future, the authorities would have the right to penalize workers who defy safety and health guidelines at a wo rkplace. Another suggestion is the ministry could also publish the names of engineers, details of their projects and their track records in meeting safety guidelines. Training and education are also important to educate worker. With training and education not only reduce the accident also reduce the cost and save life. A study by Toole (2002) had found that if workers do not have proper training on safety, they may not be able to recognize potential hazards at a site. The workers also need to sit for a basic skills test written examination on safety. This exam carried out to determine the competency level of new workers on their knowledge and awareness. At Singapore, government of Singapore has introduced a skill test to construction workers in the country. Workers who passed the examination would be awarded with skill evaluation certificate. But Malaysian government still did not use this approach. Maybe in the next future, it can be used to increase the safety in Malaysias industry. The main problem with the safety issues is the attitude of the worker. They need to change their behavior in order to prevent accident occur to them. Some workers did not expose with the environment of workplace. So, they need to enter programs that teach them how to contribute awareness in safety. Last but not least, commitments of management also important in adopting safe work at workplace. Nothing happened if only the workers take part in awareness of safety. Management need to prepare a safety workplace like prepare a fire hole in building and also put a poster about safety in building. ii. Contribution in Health There are many ways to contribute awareness in health. Actually, we can take ways from awareness in safety as contribution awareness in health. One of the ways to contribute awareness in health is a change in designer mindset. Some designers always think their design without thinking others prospects. They just think their design can publish or not. This is bad attitude because they not think about the others. Other than that, motivate the designer also one of important way of contribution of awareness in health. Many designers need incentives beyond the benefits to worker safety and health, in order to wholeheartedly embrace the practice. Other potential sources of motivation and incentive include the design contract, market forces, knowledge of potential cost savings, professional codes of ethics, building codes, standard design practice, and legislative actions such as regulations that clearly recognize a safety role for designers. Designers also need have high knowledge. The lack of safety and health knowledge among designers should be addressed by providing training on safety health-related topics during the designers formal education and continuing professional development. Alternative designs that enhance safety and health must be collected and made available for reference. Also, designers need practical guidelines for addressing safety amid the complex array of design processes and regulations they encounter in their work. Constructor involvement also plays the important role in contribution awareness in health and safety. Constructors and construction workers can help designers recognize potential construction safety hazards and identify a facilitys permanent design features that could be modified to minimize such hazards. iii.Contribution to Environment Nowadays, environmental protection has becomes significant issues. In order to increase the awareness in this problem, Environmental Ethics have been introduced in purpose to develop roots of environmental movement and to understand the responsibility to the environment [1]. Engineers lead in the creation of solutions for the problems caused by current technologies. Thus, engineers play important roles in protecting environment. Environments protection is needed in order to protect the integrity of biosphere, to control dangerous and unnatural substances and lastly to provides a healthy environment for human beings [1]. One of the important contributions of engineer to environmental issue is working to find solutions to the problems caused by the modern technology. The skills and knowledge of an engineer is needed to help to protect the environment and this duty is one of the engineering codes of ethics. The concern about the environment has grown thus when developing a new technology, engineers should ensure designed product does not affect the environment. The product that has been produced must have the least effect to the environment. For examples, many of the products nowadays are recyclable and can be reused thus this can save the source of our nature. To make sure the environment is protected and be taking care with the development of technologies, environmental code of ethics should be practice by all engineers. Professional codes of ethics already told us the safety of people and environment to be of paramount importance. This statement clearly states that engineer do have responsibility to ensure their work done in the most environmentally safe manner [1]. In reality, there might be complexity on these issues such as conflict between employers desires and the employee. When an employer suggest on project that ethically wrong and gave a big impact on environment, an engineer have the right to express his opinion on moral issues regarding environment. In this case, both professional and personal ethics can be used as the guidelines in making a decision. Basically, an engineer needs to make a decision in the area which he competent. Thus, for many environmental issues, engineers should seek for counsel who have better knowledge in environments policy in order to help analyze and to understand the possible consequences of a project done to the environment. Engineers also can corporate with biologists or public health experts when developing a new project in order to ensure the project conducted in the most environmental manner. Sustainable Design is widely been practiced in most development countries in this world. It is also known as Green Engineering in some countries. Sustainable Development is the challenge of meeting human needed in many areas likely in natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation and effective waste management [4]. This concept also conserved and protected environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development [4]. This is to ensure that engineer products design does not harm the environment. By using this Green Engineering Principles, an engineer can help to maintain the integrity of the environment and most importantly to make sure that quality of human life can be sustained. iv. Way to keep abreast with the development of technology In this technological era, an engineer must go ahead and keep abreast with the new development. One way to keep abreast with the development of technology is to attend the professional conference or seminar. Usually in the conference all engineer from various field are pleasantly presenting their new research and projects. Globalization is trending in world right now. It is a term that describes the global actions toward economy, politic, technology and society needed which makes national boundaries is less important. Globalization is changing the way of our lives either on a personal basis or social relationship. Engineers should take advantages on globalization as it is a world without boundaries. The effects of globalization includes such as the emergence of worldwide production markets, expanded level of trades and the development of global telecommunications system which allow engineers to work in any places in the world while keep in contact in the other part of the world. The rapidly changing skill requirements and knowledge in the engineering profession are important challenges to engineer. Thus, lifelong learning is a way for individual engineers to keep abreast with the new fundamentals. Merely take notes on the new development and takes training on the latest technology are good ways to keep in the right track of the current developments. It is noticeable that an engineer should make decision only in the area which he is competent. Thus, in developing new project, all engineers in various area should cooperates and work together to ensure the project done have good impacts to society. Cooperation of all engineers can keep them abreast with the current technologies that been produced and make them aware of the new products that will be produced. v. Case Study on Clean Water: The Professional Engineers Contribution to Health In 1848, after a second outbreak of cholera again due to polluted drinking water in Glasgow, Scotland, UK, a water supply system was suggested to overcome the growing health problem[5]. Five years later, John Fredrick Bateman, a civil engineer, concluded his study to find the best potential source for Glasgow, recommending the high-quality water of Loch Katrine. The resulting supply system took three and half years to complete and involved the construction of a dam on the loch, 42km of aqueduct, a similar length of trunk mains, 74km of distribution pipes and the Mugdock storage reservoir at Milngavie. Over 140 years later, changes to European and UK water quality standards, particularly in respect of disinfectant by-products and micro-organisms such as Cryptosporidia, formed the main driver behind the new water treatment plant. In 2003, the main contractor, MJ Gleeson was appointed to manage the design and construction of the new Loch Katrine Water Works. The design of the new treatment works involved over 100 technical staffs from 25 different disciplines. Disciplines involved included are civil engineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, environmental consultants, cost consultants etc. In addition, due to the Katrine is a famous tourism spot, environmental factors were considered for the construction. In order to minimize the visual and landscape impacts of the project, the plant is partially sunk into ground while open exposed areas have been given a natural stone finish and service reservoir has a green roof [5]. The sludge system was moved into the sewer system on the other side of the site, which prevented developing a separate on-site sludge treatment plant. To summarize, the original works was for transporting water form Loch Katrine to Glasgow with very little in the way of treatment. The fundamental function of the new works is treatment. Both are excellent examples of outstanding professional engineering. IV.CONCLUSION As the conclusion, engineers have the responsibility to concern on health, safety and environment issues for their design and workplace. In order to overcome new threat, they also need to keep updated with new technology such that they can contribute more in improving the life of mankind. V.REFERENCES [1] Charles B. Fleddermann, Engineering Ethics, E Source Prentice Hall 3rd Edition. [2] Engr. Mohd Khairolden Ghani, Grad. IEM, Engr. Dr. Zuhairi Abd. Hamid, MIEM, PEng, Engr. Maria Zura Mohd Zain, Grad.IEM, Engr. Ahmad Hazim Abdul Rahim, Grad. IEM, Engr. Kamarul Anuar Mohamad Kamar, Grad. IEM, Muhammed Asraff Abdul Rahman Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM) CIDB Malaysia, Safety Malaysian Construction: The Challengenges and Initiatives [3] John Gambatese, Jimmie Hinze, Michael Behm ,Oregon State University, University of Florida, East Carolina University(May 2005), Investigation of the Viability of Designing for Safety [4] National Society of Professional Engineers, United States [5] Katrine Water Treatment Project, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Retrieved Oct 4, 2010, from http://www.watertechnology.net/projects/katrine

Fredrick Douglas Essay -- Biography Biographies Slavery Slaves Essays

Fredrick Dougalas Is it possible for one of our times, living in the free United States, to be bonded in the institution of slavery? One hundred and fifty years have past now since slavery was abolished. The institution of slavery kept the deprivation of women legal and the learning of the mind illegal. Among the slaves, there could be no men, or else that slave would not be a slave. Frederick Douglas existed among slavery only to later on escape and gain his freedom from those who oppressed and enslaved him. The masters of slaves were determined to keep their slaves ignorant so that they would not even think of freedom or the joys it. Slaveholders tried to keep their slaves happy, but yet under their control. Douglas would not stand for this. It was his intelligence, bravery, and determination that made Frederick Douglas a man and not a slave. Frederick Douglas was born and raised a slave. He had no other life in his youth. The harsh conditions of the institution forced Frederick to crawl into a bag at night and sleep on the cold ground with his head in the bag and his feet outside of it. This form of sleeping led his feet to be cracked with frost so badly that one could stick a pen into the gashes. Douglas and the other slaves were not fed a regular allowance of food. Him and the other children were called and eat coarse corn meal from a large wooden tray that was put on the ground. The children would be forced to eat like pigs gathered around left over mush. At the age of seven or eight years old, Frederick left Colonel Lloyd’s (a prominent slaveholder) plantation to live in Baltimore, Maryland with Mr. Hugh Auld. Mr. Auld was a man who had never bonded a slave and knew very little of the keepings of them. Neither did his wife, who (without the knowledge of its repercussions) taught Frederick how to read. After Mr. Auld forbade his wife to teach Douglas, Frederick decided he would learn anyway. He tried to read newspapers and was forbidden. Whenever Frederick was left alone, he would attempt to read only to have Mr. Auld come and snatch away whatever reading material he had. The little that Frederick was taught was enough for him to go into the streets and receive his lessons from the boys whom he was acquainted with. Though Mrs. Auld refused to teach him, Douglas was determined to learn and he did. Determination was the firs... ...me that turning point in his career as a slave. It revived his sense of manhood. Douglas was determined to live a free life. He tried to escape from bondage not once, but twice. After betrayal the first time, Douglas was sent to the city once again to live with the Auld family. Douglas picked up a trade and worked to gain wages. He devised a plan where he would contract his time and would pay Mr. Auld six dollars a week to allow him to do this. He would allow Mr. Auld to trust that he would not run away. He did this by working hard and giving Mr. Auld all of his wages. He would make Mr. Auld very happy and content with this agreement. At the height of this, Douglas escaped bondage. He was able to outwit his master and escape from the hells of slavery. Among the slaves, there were few who one could point out to be men for they lacked the intelligence, determination and bravery. Douglas was able to open his eyes and see that this life was not right. He viewed slavery as the greatest evil of his time. His successful escape proved him to be the man that a slaveholder could never keep. Bibliography: Narrative of the life of Fredrick Dougalass, Fredrick Dougalass

The Cause of Death in All Quiet on the Western Front :: All Quiet on the Western Front Essays

The Cause of Death in All Quiet on the Western Front Erich Maria Remarque's ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a very interesting and true-to-heart novel based in the first world war where many men and women died because someone called them the enemy. The main character is Paul Baumer, a nineteen year old man who is swept into the war, along with his friends, not one day before he is out of school. They are sent to the front to "protect the fatherland" or Germany as it is called. Paul and his friends go from this idealistic opinion to disillusionment throughout the book as they discover the truth that the enemy is just like them, and Paul's friends start being killed one-by-one. This novel is a gripping account of how war is most of the time bloody and horrid. The few who came out of this war were not the people they were when they left. They become pale and emotionless, without feeling or thought. Some killed themselves, they had experienced ultimate horror, the horror of war. The novel starts two years after Paul and his friends first reached the front and then goes back and forth between present and past. The main topics throughout the book is the change from idealism to disillusionment, the loss of Paul's friends, and especially the loss of Paul's innocence. The change from idealism to disillusionment is really the driving force behind the novel. From young school boys, listening to their schoolmaster asking "Won't you join up comrades?"(11) to "weary, broken"(294) men, idealism and disillusionment play a major role on Paul's decisions and thoughts. For example, on the second page of the novel, Paul says, "It would not be such a bad war if only one could get a little more sleep." (2) Later in the book, a disillusioned Paul says of the same war, "I see how people are set against one another and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another."(263) Even though he has been in the war two years, the first quote shows how Paul's idealism is still strong. In the second quote, Paul sees the war for what it truly is, a waste of time, food, money, and young men. The

A Man for All Seasons (Friend or Foe) Essay

In the book, A Man For All Seasons by Robert Bolt there are a few people that can’t be trusted by Sir Thomas More, the main character in the book. Richard Rich is definitely one of those men who can’t be trusted and along with Thomas Cromwell the two destroy More’s life slowly but surely and to the point of death. In the end of the book More is executed for high treason and his family goes from being very well off to having to start over. So this book shows that through deceitfulness of two, one can fall. There are two main reasons that Rich would be considered a â€Å"Foe† and those are his weak moral character and his devalue of More’s friendship. These are reasons to make someone a â€Å"Foe† because if a person doesn’t hold true to their morals then they are easily persuaded and if a person had the friendship of More then they would be idiots not to keep that friendship and respect. In the following paragraphs I will give examples from the book of these reasons. One reason why Rich is a â€Å"Foe† is because his moral character isn’t very strong and throughout the book there are many times where it is shown that Rich doesn’t have a strong moral character, for example: Rich: But every man has his price? More: No-no-no- Rich: But yes! In money too. More: No no no Rich: Or pleasure. Titles, woman, bricks-and-mortar, there’s always something. More: Childish. In this quote (pg.4) it shows that Rich can be bought and he is trying to tell More that this is normal because everyone â€Å"has his price†. However, More, being the kind and charitable man he is, tries to explain that being able to be bought is not normal and it is a moral weakness in someone’s character and tries to help him get a job as a teacher where there is no temptation of bribery. Another example of how Rich’s moral character is weak  is when he is talking to Cromwell and Cromwell tells him that he is to become Secretary to the Council, which he asks Rich not tell anyone about it. However when Cromwell repeats the question over and over, Rich, finally, says he would but it would depend on the bribe. The quote is as follows (pg.71-72): Cromwell: No ceremony, no courtship. Be seated. As his majesty would say. Yes; see how I trust you. Rich: Oh, I would never repeat or report a thing like that- Cromwell: What kind of thing would you repeat or report? Rich: Well, nothing said in friendship-may I say â€Å"friendship†? Cromwell: If you like. D’you believe that-that you would never repeat or report anything et cetera? Rich: Yes! Cromwell: No, but seriously. Rich: Why, yes! Cromwell: Rich; seriously Rich: It would depend what I was offered. In the beginning of the book More trusts Rich as a friend and he helps to get Rich a job as a librarian for the Duke of Norfolk, however, Rich stabs More in the back by joining Cromwell, who dislikes More very much and wants to see his demise. For instance in this quote he gives away information about a goblet given to More from a litigant that he was given by More who gave it to him in secret because he didn’t want to be bribed because he thought this was wrong. The quote is as follows (pg.75-76): Cromwell: Just so. This goblet that he gave you, how much was it worth? Come along, Rich, he gave you a silver goblet. How much did you get for it? Rich: Fifty shillings Cromwell: Could you take me to that shop? Rich: Yes Cromwell: Where did he get it? It was a gift from a litigant, a woman, wasn’t it? Rich: Yes Cromwell: Which court? Chancery? No, don’t get drunk. In which court was this litigant’s case? Rich: Court of Requests Cromwell: There, that wasn’t too painful, was it? Rich: No! Another example of how Rich devalues Mores friendship is when he is confronted about it and denies it. This happens when Cromwell confronts Rich about his friendship with More and he denies and when Cromwell says that More got him a job he devalues that by saying that More only recommended him to the Duke even though Rich couldn’t have gotten the job himself. This also shows that Rich doesn’t hold to his views under pressure, which makes easily changed. The quote is as follows (pg.36-37): Cromwell: †¦.There you are in a comparative backwater-yet the new Lord Chancellor’s an old friend of yours. Rich: He isn’t really my friend†¦ Cromwell: Oh, I thought he was. Rich: In a sense he is. Cromwell: Well, I always understood that he set you up in life. Rich: He recommended me to the Duke. In conclusion Sir Thomas More can’t trust Richard Rich because of his morally weak character, he devalues More’s friendship and he cracks under pressure. More also can’t trust Cromwell and when Cromwell and Rich are united they are dangerous even to though the smartest of men which More is one. I believe that Rich by himself would not be considered as dangerous as Cromwell, however, that is just my opinion. Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons is a provoking historical drama. Thomas More, who is considered to be an honest man, is entangled in the politics of the day and having to decide between his own welfare and his personal conscience. Thomas is an absolute saint of the church, but now he had to choose between two different kinds of loyalty. The theme seems to be recurring, regardless of the age or setting. In fact, it is the Common Man who reminds the audience â€Å"The 16th century is the century of the common man.  Like all the other centuries.† By performing different characters with same personalities, â€Å"Common Man† enabled the audience to understand the complexities of More’s character in the way of juxtaposition. The Common Man in the play is actually an alienation device, which was first invented by Bertolt Brecht. Here, the Common Man is an effective device to maintain interest, interpret the action and convey the themes. He just like the Chorus in ancient Greek drama, whose role was to review the action, explores motivations and issues, foretell what might happen and explore any consequences. Both the Common Man and the Chorus relate the play to audience’s everyday life and their frame of reference in modern society. He is the linkage between the audiences and the stage. Just like how he is called, the Common Man, has all the characteristics ordinary people does. He has ordinary morals, ordinary doubts and ordinary concerns, which means he is always ready to compromise, distrustful of martyrdom and plays things low. He is the â€Å"Old Adam†, he is â€Å"us all†. Thomas More, who is the Chancellor of England during Henry 8th, is just the opposite of Common Man. At that time, Henry and his wife Catherine had been unable to birth a boy to be the heir of England, so Henry wanted to divorce with her and marry Anne Boleyn, but cannot get permission from the Pope. Henry tried very hard to get help from Thomas More because he is known to be an honest man and had very good reputation across the whole Europe. Henry pointed out extremely clearly that â€Å"Because you are honest. What’s more to the purpose, you’re known to be honest.† However, More is a strong principled man who held his belief firmly, he was loyal to the Church, at the same time, as the Chancellor of England, he cannot be disloyal to the King. Cardinal Wolsey, the former Chancellor, was executed for unable to help the King with the divorce. In order to keep himself and his family safe, Thomas More decided to keep silent and seek protection from the laws. If More’s â€Å"self† is unchangeable, the Common Man’s weakness is in his readiness to adapt and change into almost anything as a means to survive. Compared with the Common Man, the characteristic of honest of Thomas More is clearly observed. In Act One, More offered Rich a silver goblet, and spoke  frankly and bluntly that the goblet was a bribe from a woman who had a case at the court. More can certainly not say so, but he didn’t. When the King came to his house to talk about the divorce, the King pointed out directly that â€Å"Because you are honest. What’s more to the purpose, you’re known to be honest.† But when it comes to the Common Man, it all turned to be upside down. Matthew stole the wine of Thomas More, but lied about it; In order to protect himself, the Publican denied stoutly about knowing who Cromwell was; Jailer chose not to report Sir Thomas More’s statements for his own safe. The Common Man lies to survive, he holds his belief on self preservation, he is not a great man, he cannot affect the decisions of the Parliament, and he is only a common man, a man do whatever it take s to survive. More is also very loyal, to both the King and the Church. He didn’t want to betray either side, so he chose to be silent. He is a liberal thinker and a man of integrity. Even he didn’t want to swear to the Act, and resigned from his office, but he still concerned for the country. He warned Norfolk about threaten from the old Church and asked him to â€Å"keep an eye on the Border†. However, the Common Man doesn’t have this good quality. Matthew, a person who should be loyal to his master, Sir Thomas More, offered information about him to Cromwell, Rich and Chapuys for money. He became one of the sources of Cromwell; he sold his soul out and turned into an accomplice who sent More to death. When Sir Thomas More resigned from the position, he had to cut down Matthew’s wage, and without hesitate, Matthew left him and went to be the servant of Rich Richard. These two men’s acts are so different that we can see Thomas More’s characteristics of loyal clearly. Sir Thomas More is a man of principle as well. He held his belief in God so strong that nothing can bend it. He is a son of the Church. When Roper proposed to More that he wanted to marry his daughter, he refused for Roper was an heretic. More knew that Roper was a good young man and admired him a lot, but he still said no for his principles. Roper married Margaret as soon as he turned back to the Church. In order to uphold the principles, he insisted not signing on the Act, even he is threatened by death. But the Common Man changes the principles according to convenient. At first, the boatman tries to bilk More for more money, but eventually, after More is  dangerous to get close to, he even refused to take him home. Whether it is the Steward, the Boatman, the Publican or the Jailer, each persona is full of self-interest and simple pragmatism. â€Å"It isn’t difficult to keep alive, friends . . . just don’t make trouble, or if you must make trouble, make the sort of trouble that’s expected.† The metaphor of water appeared many times in the play. Water is flowing and changeable. The succession of characters the Common Man portrays provides an image of that fluidity. When people are aligned with the Common Man, they can find it difficult to comprehend Thomas More. For he got so many opportunities to save his life and reunite with his families. It’s hard to understand his martyrdom and strong belief in the law. In the contrast, Common Man knows the time and precisely when the stakes are too high, †If it’s worth that much now, it’s worth my neck presently. I want no part of it. They can sort it out between them. I feel my deafness coming on.† More also has an understanding of them, even when they steal his wine. â€Å"Matthew, I shall miss you.† While the play centre on More’s choice to die rather than sign over his name on the Act, it’s easy to determine how More’s characteristics are presented to the audience. If More is defined with his words, â€Å"a man’s soul is his self†, then the Common Man may best be defined by his philosophy, â€Å"better a live rat than a dead lion†. Even at times the Common Man is dishonest, manipulating, unscrupulous and disloyal; he is a master of living in the society. He changes his values easily like the water bounce back when hit on the bank. Thomas More held his unchangeable principles The alienation device has challenged our perspectives and left us with much to ponder. Ultimately, it is not only how we, the audience, perceive the Common Man or even how he sees himself. Most importantly, it is the understanding that those in power have of the Common Man and his motives, ideals and aspirations. ACT 1, SCENE 1 Conversation between Thomas More and Richard Rich. RICH: Well there! ‘A friend of Sir Thomas and still no office? There must be something wrong with him.’ MORE: I thought we said friendship†¦The Dean of St Paul’s offers you a post; with a house, a servant and fifty pounds a year. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. RICH: It’s hard. MORE (grimly): Be a teacher. This conversation, as well as the previous one, sets up the contrast between Sir Thomas More and Richard Rich which is prevalent throughout the entire play. In this opening scene, Rich and More argue over whether or not anyone can be bought. While Rich believes â€Å"every man has his price†, More refuses to agree with the notion that everybody could succumb to the temptations of status, power, wealth and women, or the notion of suffering. Rich means to say that men want to avoid suffering and are therefore attracted to the possibility of escape, and More instantly recognises this idea as one of Machaevelli’s. As Machaevelli is historically understood to have written on the government, and how putting political appropriateness above ethical issues and morality was the sensible approach to be taken in aquiring status, Rich’s corruptibility and the suppression of his conscience is foreshadowed in that Machaevelli’s theories both interest and attract him. More warns Rich of the temptation involved in aquiring a high-ranking job, and offers him an Italian silver cup. The silver cup symbolises More’s attempt to test and teach Rich, and is significant throughout the play as it represents the commencement of Rich’s corruptibilty, which eventually escalates into much more evil and immoral actions later on. The cup also represents the differences in principles and morailty between More and Rich. While More’s principles don’t allow him to keep such a â€Å"contaminated† object, Rich jumps at the chance of receiving something so valuable for free. In between this opening conversation with More and the next important step in Rich’s complete loss of innocence, and More’s own demise, a number of changes occur in character relationships. Rich and Cromwell’s relationship becomes closer and more valuable. More recognises this and assumes Rich no  longer requires More’s assistance in aquiring employment. Rich objects to this, claiming he would rather work with More than Cromwell, however More again refuses Rich a job as he is certain Rich is untrustworthy and to an extent, dangerous. This is obvious in that while More points out to Norfolk that Rich is in search of employment, he does not â€Å"recommend† him. Matthew (More’s servant and one representation of the common man), also predicts that Rich will amount to nothing, but as we see later on, Rich’s deception and lack of morality and principles ultimately, and ironically, gets him everything he ever wanted. More talks to Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor, who tries to convince him to approve of King Henry’s divorce, but More believes the divorce is unacceptable without the Pope’s consent. Despite Wolsey’s warnings of consequences associated with disapproval, More refuses to set aside his beliefs and conform, giving a clear insight into his belief in staying true to ones self and not conforming to something you don’t agree with out of fear. This persona of More foreshadows his stance on events that come later in the play. More also refuses to allow Roper to marry his daughter Margaret due to Roper’s dynamic religious beliefs, labelling him a heretic, and disapproving of his inability to stay true to the English Church. Rich becomes Norfolk’s secretary and librarian, and Cromwell undermines him for this. Rich admits he isn’t really friends with More anymore, which explains why he hasn’t yet aquired a better job. However, when Cromwell offers him employment he declines, showing that he isn’t ready to become a walking representation of Machaevelli’s theories yet, but later bribes Matthew for information on More which undermines his morality once again. Chapuys and Cromwell also bribe Matthew for information, which shows how most of the characters are immoral (especially contrasted to More) and highlights the difficulty More will face in his newly appointed position as Lord Chancellor. After deceiving More, Rich attempts to convince More to give him a job once again by telling him of Chapuys and Cromwells bribery towards Matthew. More refuses again and Rich’s violent behaviour and badgering spark fright in More’s family, who try to convice More to have Rich arrested. More believes the idea of this is infallible because Rich has not broken the law. King Henry visits More personally in an attempt to receive his approval, as the approval of a man with such an honest and moral reputation would be sure to make the King  feel moral as well. However More is unable to discard his conscience, telling the King: â€Å"This is my right arm. Take your dagger and saw it from my shoulder, and I will laugh and be thankful, if by that means I can come with Your Grace with a clear conscience†. Once again he is portrayed as a man of irrefutable morality, in that he won’t approve of something he believes is wrong by the law, or unacceptable by God. CROMWELL: †¦Well, congratulations! †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. RICH: †¦.You enjoyed it! In this Dialogue between Rich and Cromwell at The Loyal Subject, Cromwell bribes Rich with the position of â€Å"Collector of Revenues for York† in return for information. Rich is subtly coerced into admitting he will be bought, which pleases Cromwell in that he was relying on Rich’s corruptibility for information on More. Cromwell seeks Rich’s help in making the King’s divorce â€Å"convenient†, and despite Rich’s â€Å"laments† over his own corruptibility, he informs Cromwell of the bribe More once received. Cromwell believes More will change his stance on the King’s divorce, but Rich objects, saying More will not be easily frightened. While Rich represents how one can sacrifice their own moral conscience in the face of gain, Cromwell appears to have nothing to gain, which makes him appear more evil in that he is trying to bring More down for the sake of it. Guilt is a recurring theme throughout the play, and is strongly exemplified in this extract as despite Rich’s own guilt, he easily succumbs to the temptation Cromwell offers to him, revealing his pathetic character traits which were first brought to light in the opening scene. Between Rich’s ultimate betrayal of More, and complete transformation to a representative of Machaevelli’s theories, several events occur. Act two opens, which is two years later than the previous Act. The Act of Supremacy has been passed, which states that King Henry VIII is now the head of the Church of England. Staying true to his religious beliefs, More is unable to continue in his position as Lord Chancellor due to his belief that the King is attacking the Church of England. His disapproval of the King’s actions  force him to resign in order to keep his moral conscience, as he can’t be so closely connected to someone he sees as having no conscience, let alone work for them. Cromwell intends to use the information he gained from Rich in order to blackmail More into recognising the King as the head of the English Church, and consenting to the King’s divorce. The next time we see Rich is when Cromwell questions More about his stance on the issues regarding the King, and Rich notes what it said. However, while the knowledge that the King isn’t pleased with More’s actions, and the many attempts from everyone (even his family) to make him sign the Act of Succession unsettle More, he will not sacrifice his self for anything. More takes notice of Rich’s fancy clothes, which represent Rich’s gradual rise through position and status in society. It is now clear that the contrast in Rich’s and More’s ascent and descent are simultaneous with Rich’s lack of regard concerning moral principles, and More’s refusal to ignore his moral principles and conscience. More is eventually taken to prison for refusing to agree to The Act of Succession, which deems the King’s first marriage (to Catherine) invalid, while confirming that Queen Anne’s children are the heirs to the throne. More feels he will be condemned to hell if he is to approve, and while his death has been forshadowed, the play argues that his sacrifice of life is nothing compared to the other characters who sacrifice themselves and their consciences. As More’s family comes to the Tower of London to see him, his love for them is highlighted, while his absolute love for God is further highlighted in that he is willing to sacrifice a happy life with his family who he loves so much in order to serve God, and protect what he believes to be right. CROMWELL (backs away. His face stiff with malevolence): My lords, I wish to call (raise voice) Sir Richard Rich! †¦.. NORFOLK: Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty on the charge of High Treason. The sentence of the court is that you shall be taken from the Court to the Tower, thence to the place of execution, and there your head shall be stricken from your body, and may God have mercy on your soul! Prior to this extract (during More’s trial in which he is being charged with high treason), Cromwell attempts to convince the jury that More’s silence  regarding the King can be interpreted as nothing but disapproval. More once again refuses to take the Act of Succession, as he sees taking the oath as lying to God, which would be sacrificing his self. Rich is called to the stand, and claims he heard More say â€Å"Parliament has not the competence† to declare Henry VIII the head of the Church of England. More denies this, and tells the court there were two other people present during the conversation with Rich, but Cromwell undercuts this by saying they could not be at the trial and heard nothing anyway. Ultimately, More’s attempts to teach Rich were futile and unsuccessful, as Rich’s actions directly led to More’s death. When More realises his fate, he publicly denounces the Act of Supremacy and while he considers himself loyal to King Henry, he understands his premature death is because he refused to recognise the King’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. More also realises Rich has a new chain of office, and mildly scolds him: â€Å"Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world†¦but for Wales?†. Rich’s transformation to everything More ever despised is completed with his perjury. Ironically, More’s own refusal to perjure himself led to his death, while Rich’s willingness led to his financial and social prosperity. A Man for all seasons In Robert Bolt’s, â€Å"A man for all seasons†, Sir Thomas More did not die in vain. He stayed true to himself. More achieved more in the end because he didn’t let death worry him. His last words illustrate this â€Å"His will not refuse one who is so blithe to go† (pg. 99). More understood that he was in line with his beliefs. More fought for what he believed in and refused to be molded into something that he wasn’t. He knew that by dying, he would be proving a point to the public and let it be known that Cromwell had set him up. By More dying, he proved a point to himself and the public. That he was honorable and not going to succumb to the deceitful thinking of Cromwell and the King. â€Å"I have not disobeyed my sovereign. I truly believe no man in England is safer than myself.† (pg. 40) This clearly demonstrates the fact that More knew what he was on about and wasn’t going to go against his  beliefs for the sake of living. More strongly believed in the church and the Head of the Church, the Pope. He sustained in doing what you feel right in your heart, not what people tell you. More knew that if he stayed alive, it would have been sufferable, living in jail for the rest of his life, no job and little sight of family. He did what he thought was right. â€Å" I do no harm, I say none harm, I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in good faith I long not to live†(pg. 97) When More died it sent a message to the public that the Kin was wrong in what he was doing. As More died in front of a lot of people, it certainly showed to the public that it was honorable and he put his point across in the clear way. â€Å"†¦.but because I would not bend to the marriage† (pg. 78) More is simply stating that he wouldn’t agree with the King for the clear intention of staying alive. More knew that Cromwell had set he up, yet had no way of proving it and knew that no-one would believe him. Cromwell was hunting More for his beliefs not actions. People’s greed justified that they could go after More in order to get what they wanted. An example of this Machiavellian principle is Richard Rich. He helped to kill More, he even lied under oath, all it get what he wanted. As More said to Cromwell, â€Å"In matters of conscience, the loyal subject is more bounden to be loyal to his conscience than to any other thing.† (pg. 92) This suggests that More believed in what he was saying and it didn’t matter what Cromwell was saying, More simply dismissed it. More died for the fact that he would not succumb to the beliefs of the public and the monarchy. He stayed true to himself and this is the most important factor in life. If you are denying yourself to order to get something or somewhere, you are cheating yourself. A man for all seasons A Man for All Seasons is the story of a man who knows who he is, expressing courage and faithfulness at all costs. In addition, every character has their own ends to meet, and the only distinguishable feature between them is  how they go about it. Some characters disregard all sense of morality as they plunge into an approach, which primarily encompasses self-interest. In all, most of the characters in the movie personify selfishness in one way or another. Of course there are some whose selfishness is more noticeable than others; however, at some point they are all deficient in their consideration of others and live chiefly for personal profit. All except for one, Sir Thomas More he is a man who subconsciously is a slave to his own conscience. He executes selfless acts in order to do what he knows is legal, and what he thinks is right. He is one of very few people who have died with their integrity intact. Every other character sold themselves out to the king. To be honest, I think I would have sold myself out to the king to, if the consequence was to be beheaded if I did not. That is why I envy Sir Thomas because of his individualism, ethics, and courage he had during his stand against the King. Sir Thomas More was a character who was faced with a number of difficult choices. The major one being, when Henry VIII’s first wife was unable to produce an heir to the throne, he used that as an excuse for the pope to grant him a divorce, so he could marry a new wife. The King is backed by everyone on this request except the highly regarded and religious Sir Thomas More. When the old Chancellor of England, named More his successor, it became important for Henry to get More’s support, but More could not be swayed. He made his decision to oppose the marriage early on, but even though it was something he did not waver from, he still had trouble with it. More made a very difficult decision in opposing the King and his family, but regardless of the consequences, he felt that he was morally correct and for him to choose any other path would have been impossible for he could not oppose the church and God. I think Alice’s and his daughter Margaret’s complaints probably had the most impact with More because he cared very deeply about his family and probably would have caved in to the King, if he had he not felt he was correct in his decision and there was no other alternative. Honestly, I think everyone should have moral values of some kind, but I do not know about having such strong morals that a person is willing to give up their life and family to stand for what they believe in. Above all, Thomas More did what he did because his ultimate goal was to be with God. Consequently, he felt he had to do what God wanted and not what his king wanted him to do. In addition, having an attitude like that did  put a damper on his relationship with his wife. I think they loved each other very much, but she did not feel entirely appreciated by him. It was evident that Thomas’s formidable intelligence intimidated her and she felt inferior to him. That was probably common in that day and time because women of that era rarely were educated, whereas the men were. In the end, their love for one another was evident in the scene up in Tower of London. Both of them getting teary eyed, knowing they will never get to see each other ever again. Even after that scene Thomas felt he was making the right decision because he was able to explain why he made the decision to go against the King. Chiefly, no one supported More’s decision not even his own family, but More’s family did support him. Especially his wife Alice she knew her husband better than any other human being. Therefore, when she finds herself at her limit in comprehending why her husband would take such a stand against the king, it bothers Thomas More. Mostly because she is his anchor in life and he needs her support, and needs her to understand why he is doing what he is doing. In the end, I think she understands why Thomas did what he did and the human risk of taking a principled stand against power. On the other hand, everyone else decided they were going to support King Henry VIII or be two faced about his moral standards. A great example of this was with the character, Oliver Cromwell, he represented the basic evilness of the film and threaten to have More executed for not acquiescing to the marriage. All he ever did was try and make the king happy. For instance, he said, â€Å"When the King wants something done, I do it†. I think Cromwell said this because he did not want his head to be cut off; therefore, all he did was kiss up to the king. In the end, it did not help him because he was tried and found guilty of treason. One character that did not get tried for treason was Richard Rich. He was one of the characters that betrayed Sir Thomas More. Throughout the film it was obvious to the viewer Richard Rich only cared about himself. By far, his worse act of selfishness was when he lied and sold out Thomas More for he could become Attorney General of Wales. As a result, I think Rich was a piece of scum for doing such acts of treachery to an old friend. I also believe Thomas More thought so because he said, â€Å"Richard, it profits a man nothing to trade his soul for the whole world, but for Wales†. I thought that was a tremendous slap in the face to Richard. Another character that betrayed Thomas More  after being his friend was the Duke of Norfolk, he foolishly badgered More to relent and join the King’s supporters. Obviously he did not realizing the depth of More’s integrity. Consequently, Norfolk conducted the trial for High Treason against his former friend, never aware that More had eased his passage from trusted friend to state enemy by purposely offending him. Above all, that is why I envy Sir Thomas More because of his individualism, ethics, and courage he had throughout his stand against King Henry VIII. It would have been hard for a person to purposely make an enemy out of a good friend. Even when you know it is for their own good. I do not think it would be possible for me to do that, which is why I envy Thomas. Aside from envying him I did not agree with what he did. In my eyes, putting his morals before his family was wrong of him. There had to have been other ways to voice your opinion back in that era without losing your head. I feel Sir Thomas More caused great suffering to his family that was unnecessary. In conclusion, I think you made us watch the movie for that particular reason. To show us how diverse each person’s attitude is towards their higher power. Now days in America, people are permitted to voice their opinion, and we take it for granted not realizing what a privilege it is to be able to speak out with no consequences.

Is Kate Minola tamed by the end of “Taming of the Shrew” by William Shakespeare Essay

IntroductionThe Taming of the Shrew is one of Shakespeares most popular plays. Its wit and comedy revolves around Kate Minola, a strong-willed woman who is seen as a shrew due to her unwillingness to conform to the unwritten rules of lady-hood and Pertruchio who is convinced he was born to tame [Kate]. The most obvious and major question would then be, was Katherine tamed by the end of the play? To be tamed, one would have to be forcibly changed into submissive obedience. A tamed being would obey there master unquestionably in order to obtain a reward or avoid a punishment. I believe, although Kate has changed by the end of the play, she was not tamed but liberated. Although she acts just as Pertruchio demands, she is not submissive but in fact, has objectives of her own. BodyI would like to start by answering the questions as to why Kate is stark mad or wonderful forward to begin with. Kate has grown up being the loser in a competition with her sister in terms of suitors and the respect of there father. Baptista cherishes Bianca while not even defending Kate on the streets when people insulted, calling her too rough or fiend of hell. At the beginning of Act 2, it can be seen that Kate is jealous of Bianca. On top of that, Baptista automatically assumes that the fight was Kates fault and This combination of her frustration to the fact that that Bianca has an army of suitors while she seemingly will end up alone and the neglect, humiliation and lack of respect from her father can and did undoubtedly pushed her to become the angry person she is. Her isolation and anger is a cycle. Her strong-will and violence pushes people the people around her away, causing her to be more frustrated and angry which furthers her alienation. I believe Pertruchio was not successful in taming her but was successful freeing her of the cycle and showing her all the benefits of a better behavior. Her anger towards herself and others due to loneliness is broken by Pertruchios will to match Kates ferocity and compliment her. This has never happened to her before and I believe it gave her the attention she has always longer for. In the beginning the attention was quite obnoxious especially when it came to Pertruchio and his servants. He was angry and violent towards them much like the way Kate acted before and you can tell that she saw the horror of that behavior. Pertruchio did many things like keep her up and not feed her and after that, she most likely longed for a more peaceful environment and perhaps, if she conformed, she is able to receive better love, love that her father never gave her. I think Pertruchio also showed her that she no longer has to be mad at herself. She has a husband who loves her and therefore, the cycle is broken. Before Kate was focused on challenging the status quo and feeling sorry for herself. Petruccio took both those thoughts from her head and threw them out the window. He taught her that as long as she was happy, she shouldnt care what other people think of her. Like how he showed up at the wedding dressed like a fool. With that she is able to finally fit society show it off for all the people who had no faith in or time for her. Kates true identity is finally revealed and able to shine brightly with Pertruchio by her side. Before Pertruchio, Kate was able to get her way by being violent. However, Pertruchio strong-willed personality will not bend under her old weapon of emotional and physical lashing. I think she realizes this. The situation has already happened and cannot be reversed. She did not get tamed but learned to adapt and fight through other means. Switching up the technique and attacking from the inside. Perhaps, this is what Pertruchio wanted to show her. That by listening to him and being ACTING tamed, she can control the direction of her path. For example, by kiss him, they could stay at the party, by agreeing with the moon, she could go. In the beginning, Kate was refused a cap because she wasnt gentle and when she finally was, she was offered it. Listening to Pertruchio and sacrificing a little bit, she was able to gain a lot. By compromising, she would have the respect of Pertruchio who she could then use to obtain her desires, such as the nice gown and cap. With a strong husband, she could hold more power than she could even dream of under the title of the shrew. To a much larger extent, she can be happy. ConclusionIt is clear that by the end of the play, Kate has changed to a whole new person. But was Pertruchio successful in taming her? I believe he wasnt, however, he was able to show her the advantages of the other side. Pertruchios abusive techniques did not turn her to be submissive and obedient but liberated her of a false personality of unloveliness and violence spawned from her past. By compromising, Kate realized that she is not only able to achieve her materialistic goals like going to her fathers house or a nice gown and cap, but also respect, power and happiness way beyond what she was able to achieve before with anger. All these personal gains lead to conclude that Kate was not tamed but simply changed herself to achieve her own goals. Pertruchio opens her eyes to a life where she does not have to be mean and shrewish. He gave her the opportunity to be her true self without extinguishing her inner spirit and fire. Editors, SparkNotes. The Taming of the Shrew (No Fear Shakespeare) (No Fear Shakespeare). New York: SparkNotes, 2004. Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare, Signet Classic). New York: Signet Classics, 1998. â€Å"SparkNotes: The Taming of the Shrew. † SparkNotes: Most Popular Study Guides. 31 Mar. 2009 .

A Personal Perspective

Week 3 Hand-in Assignment A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a mobile computer with display circuitry and battery in a single unit. Tablets are equipped with sensors, including cameras, microphone, accelerometer and touch screen, with finger or stylus gestures replacing computer mouse and keyboard. The tablet computer and he associated special operating software is an example of pen computing technology. The first patent for a system that recognized handwritten characters by analyzing the handwriting motion was granted In 1915. In 1987. Apple computer started Its tablet project.In 2000 Microsoft coined the term Microsoft Tablet Pc for tablet Pc s built to Microsoft specification. In 2010 Apple introduce the IPad. The IPad has been characterized by some as a tablet computer that mainly focuses on videos, photos, presentation, and Microsoft Office-compatible software for word processing. The iOS 5 was released in October 2011. Samsung Galaxy Tab was also released in September 2010 . Over 80 new tablets were announced to compete with the IPad In January 2011. Companies who announced tablets included: Samsung with a new Galaxy Tab (android 2. ), Motorola with its xoom Tablet (android3. O) Research in motion demonstrating their blackberry playbook, Toshiba with the android 3. 0, Vizio with the tablet and others including Asus, and the startup Company Notion Ink. Many of these tablets are designed to run android 3. 0 honeycomb. An electronic calculator is a small, portable, often inexpensive electronic device used to perform both basic and complex operations of arithmetic, The first known tool used to ald arithmetic alculations was the Abacus, devised by Sumerians and Egyptians before 2000 BC.Computer operating systems as far back as early Unix have included interactive calculator programs such as dc and hoc, and calculator functions are included in almost all PDA-type devices (save a few dedicated address book and dictionary devices). Modern electronic calculato rs contain a keyboard with buttons for digits and arithmetical operations. Some even contain 00 and 000 buttons to make large numbers easier to enter. Most basic calculators assign only one dlglt or operation on each button.However, in more specific calculators, a button can perform multi- function working with key combination or current reckoning mode. In most countries, students use calculators for schoolwork and even financial institutions for caculating money e. g the bank etc . To conclude these systems are different than the systems am currently using today, taking the Tablet for instance we have got lots of brands now and operating systems with Interesting and educative apps .

Size up Process Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Size up Process - Essay Example For example, a fire that occurs along a highway will require different tools and techniques as compared to a fire that occurs in a residential area. Upon getting to the scene of the incident, the commanding officers normally size up the scene of the incident so as to come up with an action plan (Smoke, 2005, p.323). All other crew members are expected to follow the instructions of the commanding officer. The most crucial element of a size up structure includes: the construction type, occupancy, apparatus, life, hazards, water supply, auxiliary appliances, staging, weather, exposures, area, location, time and hazardous materials. In a size up exercise, the strategic priorities that assist the commanding officer on the ground include; rescueing, exposure, confinement, extinguishing, overhaul, ventilating and salvaging. The size up exercise is crucial as it enables the fire officials to anticipate the emergencies as they occur. It also enables them to evaluate the hose lines required, the location of the incident and identifying the potential fire victims. The size up exercise must be able to evaluate and examine the incident in terms of the safety to the personnel and public, the impact on the environment and the exposure to threats (Localizado, 2004, p.227).