Sunday, October 13, 2019

Operation Barbarossa Essay -- essays research papers

OPERATION BARBAROSSA The invasion of Russia was the largest military campaign of the Second World War. Operation Barbarossa, as it was known, was launched on 22 June 1941 and completely took Russia by surprise. The widening war raging in Africa and eastern Europe were key distractions for Hitler from his ultimate goal of attacking Russia. Although the British army remained undefeated in the west, Hitler’s goal proved an urgency for him to begin moving on the east. Whilst planning was made throughout 1940 for the invasion of Russia, time was favorable towards the Russians and they continued to mobilize their resources and strengthen their defense forces. The invasion of the Germans was a complete surprise as Russian dictator, Josef Stalin, had failed to acknowledge the increasing German troop concentrations on the border and he had also ignored British intelligence reports stating that Germany had intended to attack. Hitler once again used the Blitzkrieg technique with German tanks and air power leading the attack. There were three powerful German armies, made up of over 3 million men which moved into Russia. As one army group headed north towards Leningrad, a center group headed towards Moscow and a southern group moved to capture the food producing area of the Ukraine. By now, the Germans were thrilled with their fast advancements and initial success, including the fact that they had captured over 400 000 Russian soldiers. In late July, the advance on Leningrad and Mosco... Operation Barbarossa Essay -- essays research papers OPERATION BARBAROSSA The invasion of Russia was the largest military campaign of the Second World War. Operation Barbarossa, as it was known, was launched on 22 June 1941 and completely took Russia by surprise. The widening war raging in Africa and eastern Europe were key distractions for Hitler from his ultimate goal of attacking Russia. Although the British army remained undefeated in the west, Hitler’s goal proved an urgency for him to begin moving on the east. Whilst planning was made throughout 1940 for the invasion of Russia, time was favorable towards the Russians and they continued to mobilize their resources and strengthen their defense forces. The invasion of the Germans was a complete surprise as Russian dictator, Josef Stalin, had failed to acknowledge the increasing German troop concentrations on the border and he had also ignored British intelligence reports stating that Germany had intended to attack. Hitler once again used the Blitzkrieg technique with German tanks and air power leading the attack. There were three powerful German armies, made up of over 3 million men which moved into Russia. As one army group headed north towards Leningrad, a center group headed towards Moscow and a southern group moved to capture the food producing area of the Ukraine. By now, the Germans were thrilled with their fast advancements and initial success, including the fact that they had captured over 400 000 Russian soldiers. In late July, the advance on Leningrad and Mosco...

Saturday, October 12, 2019

Free Grendel Essays: Good Requires Evil :: Grendel Essays

Good Requires Evil in Grendel The classic struggle of good versus evil is taken from a different perspective in Grendel, a story in which John Gardner demonstrates that neither one can exist without the other. As in the parallel comparison of beauty to ugliness, it can be seen that good and evil are only identifiable in their contrast of one another. If there was nothing defined as beautiful, for instance, nothing could be ugly. There would be no such concept. Similarly, having no definition of good would make evil, too, a non-existent idea. In Grendel, Gardner grasps this thought, and maximizes its importance with the help of a horrendously confused monster and the society that he terrorizes. Throughout the novel, this monster, Grendel, seems confused as to whether he wants to view life like his existentialistic dragon mentor, or like the ignorantly optimistic humans on which he feeds. At times he is captivated by the romantic songs of the Shaper, and feels no desire to kill, while at others he thrives on the "knowledge" of the dragon, and goes on bloody rampages. At one point during Grendel's insecure state, the dragon tells him something that changes his outlook, and gives him a new feeling of self-worth. "You improve them, my boy! Can't you see that? yourself? You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. You drive them to poetry, science, religion, all that makes them what they are for as long as they last. You are, so to speak, the brute existent by which they learn to define themselves. The exile, captivity, death they shrink from--the blunt facts of their mortality, their abandonment--that's what you make them recognize, embrace! You are mankind, or man's condition: inseparable as the mountain-climber and the mountain." (72-3) In short, the dragon is saying, "You are evil and they are good, but the only thing that makes them good is you." In this statement, it is apparent that good and evil have inseparable, yet undefinable boundaries, and are actually two in the same. Grendel's evilness motivates the fearful people to work, to strive, to think, and to overcome their problems. In this, however indirect or abstract it may seem, Grendel is actually producing good. Amazingly, he manages to be both evil and good at the same time. On the other hand, it is obvious that "evil" Grendel could not survive without the "good" humans. Free Grendel Essays: Good Requires Evil :: Grendel Essays Good Requires Evil in Grendel The classic struggle of good versus evil is taken from a different perspective in Grendel, a story in which John Gardner demonstrates that neither one can exist without the other. As in the parallel comparison of beauty to ugliness, it can be seen that good and evil are only identifiable in their contrast of one another. If there was nothing defined as beautiful, for instance, nothing could be ugly. There would be no such concept. Similarly, having no definition of good would make evil, too, a non-existent idea. In Grendel, Gardner grasps this thought, and maximizes its importance with the help of a horrendously confused monster and the society that he terrorizes. Throughout the novel, this monster, Grendel, seems confused as to whether he wants to view life like his existentialistic dragon mentor, or like the ignorantly optimistic humans on which he feeds. At times he is captivated by the romantic songs of the Shaper, and feels no desire to kill, while at others he thrives on the "knowledge" of the dragon, and goes on bloody rampages. At one point during Grendel's insecure state, the dragon tells him something that changes his outlook, and gives him a new feeling of self-worth. "You improve them, my boy! Can't you see that? yourself? You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. You drive them to poetry, science, religion, all that makes them what they are for as long as they last. You are, so to speak, the brute existent by which they learn to define themselves. The exile, captivity, death they shrink from--the blunt facts of their mortality, their abandonment--that's what you make them recognize, embrace! You are mankind, or man's condition: inseparable as the mountain-climber and the mountain." (72-3) In short, the dragon is saying, "You are evil and they are good, but the only thing that makes them good is you." In this statement, it is apparent that good and evil have inseparable, yet undefinable boundaries, and are actually two in the same. Grendel's evilness motivates the fearful people to work, to strive, to think, and to overcome their problems. In this, however indirect or abstract it may seem, Grendel is actually producing good. Amazingly, he manages to be both evil and good at the same time. On the other hand, it is obvious that "evil" Grendel could not survive without the "good" humans.

Friday, October 11, 2019

Different Types of Markets Essay

What are the conditions for a perfectly competitive market? What are the conditions for a monopolistic market? What are the conditions for a monopolistic competitive market? What are the conditions for an oligopolistic market? How would you explain the differences among these market structures? Identify which market structure your organization competes in and why you think so. Colander (2008) specified that, a flawlessly modest market is a market in which financial services operate unhindered. There are six situations for a perfectly modest market, and they are as follows: both purchasers and vendors are price takers, the amount of businesses is large, there are no fences to entry, firms’ goods are indistinguishable, there is complete evidence, and finally, vending firms are profit-maximizing commercial firms. The situations for a anticompetitive market are as follows: there is only one partnership, which is large in size, this firm has to deliver all of the souk’s stock, there are high walls to entry, there are no close alternates for the good the domination firm produces, anticompetitive market should make up the whole market, the market has to take into explanation that its production result can touch price; its bordering income is not its price, and finally, a monopolist’s bordering revenue should continuously be below its price. The circumstances for a anticompetitive modest market are as follows: the market has several small companies, there are no fences to enter the market, each firm proposals a dissimilar categories of invention to the market, and finally, this market has a normal, downward-sloping demand arc. The situations for an oligopolistic market are as follows: afterward oligopolistic companies have made a choice, they should reflect the response of other companies; there are rare firms in the market, they are equally symbiotic, and finally, they can be collusive or non-collusive.

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Analysis of “The Ethics of Respect for nature”

In this paper, I will be conducting an analysis of the article â€Å"The Ethics of Respect for nature† written by Paul W. Taylor. In this paper Taylor presented the foundational structure for a life-centered theory of environmental ethics. The structures according to Taylor are based on three categories which are related. The first part of the structure is called respect for nature. What this section of the article basically talked about was how human being only respects living things. And it also mentioned how if we as human beings were to adapt to the life-centered system of environmental ethics, the way in which we view the world right now will have to have to change we would be caring for nature more than we are now. Taylor argued that, it is the good (well-being, welfare) of individual organisms, considered as entities having inherent worth that determines our moral relations with the Earth’s wild communities of life. In order to prove his argument he was able to relate the argument with the anthropocentric views. In the anthropocentric view, human actions affecting the natural environment and its nonhuman inhabitants are right (or wrong) by either of two criteria: they have consequences which are favorable (or unfavorable) to human well-being, or they are consistent (or inconsistent) with the system of norms that protect and implement human rights. From this human-centered standpoint it is to humans and only to humans that all duties are ultimately owed (James). We as human have no obligation to promote or protect the good of nonhuman living things. The difference between the life-centered system of environmental ethic and the human-centered system of environmental ethic is in life centered system (as noted earlier) we as human will have more duty to the nature. Our duties to respect the integrity of natural ecosystems, to preserve endangered species, and to avoid environmental pollution stem from the fact that these are ways in which we can help make it possible for wild species populations to achieve and maintain a healthy existence in a natural state (Taylor). Our duties with respect to the â€Å"world† of nature would be seen as making prima facie claims upon us to be balanced against our duties with respect to the â€Å"world† of human civilization. We could no longer simply take the human point of view and consider the effects of our actions exclusively from the perspective of our own good. The evidence that the author used to justify the respect of nature is by making clear the fundamental moral attitude that underlies and makes intelligible the commitment to live by such a system. The second part of the structure is a belief system that constitutes a way of conceiving of the natural world and of our place in it. This belief system underlies and supports the attitude in a way that makes it an appropriate attitude to take toward the Earth’s natural ecosystems and their life communities. This section focuses more on the perception of biocentric outlook on nature. Taylor believed that the biocentric outlook on nature has four components; the first is human are thought of as member of the earth’s community of life, second the earth’s natural ecosystems as a totality are seen as a complex web of interconnected elements, with the sound biological functioning of each being dependent on the sound biological functioning of the others. Third, each individual organism is conceived of as a teleological center of life, pursuing its own good in its own way. And the last component, whether we are concerned with standards of merit or with the concept of inherent worth, the claim that humans by their very nature are superior to other species is a groundless claim and, in the light of elements (1), (2), and (3) above, must be rejected as nothing more than an irrational bias in our own favor (Taylor). To further understand his argument he was able to relate human with other species in a biological aspect. The laws of genetics, of natural selection, and of adaptation apply equally to all of us as biological creatures. In this light we consider ourselves as one with them, not set apart from them. We, as well as they, must face certain basic conditions of existence that impose requirements on us for our survival and well-being. Each animal and plant is like us in having a good of its own. This argument is considered a strong one because it logically self-explanatory and there are many scientific evidence to support this argument (Darwin’s theory of evolution). What differentiate us humans from any other species according to Taylor is our good. This argument is reasonable because, although our human good (what is of true value in human life, including the exercise of individual autonomy in choosing our own particular value systems) is not like the good of a nonhuman animal or plant, it can no more be realized than their good can without the biological necessities for survival and physical health (Taylor). Taylor also argued about the possibility of extinction. The possibility of the extinction of the human species, a possibility which starkly confronts us in the contemporary world, makes us aware of another respect in which we should not consider ourselves privileged beings in relation to other species. This argument has some strength to it because according to biology, the well-being of humans is dependent upon the ecological soundness and health of many plant and animal communities, while their soundness and health does not in the least depend upon human well-being. Thinking about it, one can argue that the existence of the human race is not necessary. Every last man, woman, and child could disappear from the face of the Earth without any significant detrimental consequence for the good of wild animals and plants. On the contrary, many of them would be greatly benefited. The destruction of their habitats by human â€Å"developments† would cease. The poisoning and polluting of their environment would come to an end. The Earth’s land, air, and water would no longer be subject to the degradation they are now undergoing as the result of large-scale technology and uncontrolled population growth. Life communities in natural ecosystems would gradually return to their former healthy state. Tropical forests, for example, would again be able to make their full contribution to a life-sustaining atmosphere for the whole planet. The rivers, lakes, and oceans of the world would eventually become clean again. Spilled oil, plastic trash, and even radioactive waste might finally, after many centuries, cease doing their terrible work. Ecosystems would return to their proper balance, suffering only the disruptions of natural events such as volcanic eruptions and glaciation. The third component is a system of moral rules and standards for guiding our treatment of those ecosystems and life communities, a set of normative principles which give concrete embodiment or expression to the attitude of respect for nature. Taylor was able to support his argument by relating the idea of human superiority to the system of moral rules. The relations that the author made in this case certainly helped his argument because, knowing that we as human are superior to other animals, we tend to overlook the morals in which we are supposed to look at which result in humans not respecting other species (James). The author also argued that various nonhuman species have capacities that humans lack. There is the speed of a cheetah, the vision of an eagle, the agility of a monkey. Why should not these be taken as signs of their superiority over humans in the way we as human treat other species? This evidence is reliable because according to research a cheetah is faster than an average human being, an eagle has a much better vision than an average human and a monkey is much more agile than an average human being (Taylor). In the aspect of moral rights and the matter of competing claims, Taylor argued that animals and plants should not be included in the class that have moral rights. He argued that there is no reason, why plants and animals, including whole species populations and life communities, cannot be accorded legal rights under my theory. This is a strong argument because to grant them legal protection could be interpreted as giving them legal entitlement to be protected, and this, in fact, would be a means by which a society that subscribed to the ethics of respect for nature could give public recognition to their inherent worth (James). The strength of this article is that it can be related to many aspect of the human race today in consideration to the definition of right and human rights today. Most of the term that was used in the article was well defined for example the definition of both life and human centered environmental ethics. There was also enough adequate support of his argument, for example in the way Taylor used the anthropocentric view to support his argument of life-centered environmental ethics. One weakness that I found in this article is the way the author went about relating his topic in order to make his argument more sufficient. The author should have stated in introduction that he will be using â€Å"the attitude of respect of nature†, â€Å"the good of being and the concept of worth† etc. to support his argument instead of jumping into the discussion. In conclusion, Taylor presented the foundational structures for a life-centered theory of environmental ethics. The structures according to Taylor are based on three categories which are related. The first part of the structure is called respect for nature, the second part of the structure is a belief system that constitutes a way of conceiving of the natural world and of our place in it and the third component is a system of moral rules and standards for guiding our treatment of those ecosystems and life communities, a set of normative principles which give concrete embodiment or expression to the attitude of re pect for nature . The author’s main purpose in this paper has been to try to establish a base point from which we can start working toward a solution to the problem. Most of the arguments that Taylor constructed in this paper are really convincing and was supported by evidence both scientific and philosophical evidence.

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Human survival Essay

Wilson highlights the effects that the Homo sapiens have brought about in the world through what he refers to as a geophysical force, ranging from causing changes in the climate and the atmosphere to the modification of the fauna and flora. Besides, he reckons that in the history of evolution, it is only the human species that has tenuously advanced the complete mass in protoplasm. His claim that the human species’ destructive habits are maintained in their hereditary traits is credible. Apart from being tribal and assertively territorial, this species is oriented by selfish reproductive and sexual drive. Our actions lead to water and air pollution, lowering of the water tables and extinguishing of other species. The human’s nature juggernaut theory moreover explains why global responsibility comes last since the genetic heritages have led to humans being egocentric. They swiftly react to daily life minor problems and conflicts but inhumanly to similar magnitude status and tribal security challenges (Wilson, 1996). However, due to the exponential development in human populace and technology, the young generation has become more environmentally concerned than the older. Since they are in pursuit of better standards of living, they have intensified their scientific knowledge. This advancement has however led to more environmental destruction. Since humankind possesses intelligence and spirit, it has survived the ecological laws. However, these are not adequate to free this species from the natural environment’s constraints such as the almost exhausted resources and deteriorating atmospheric chemistry (Wilson, 1996). To free ourselves from the suicidal accusations, we ought to keep off civilization dimensions that are a threat to the environment. We have to be ethical so as to protect our self-images. In various arenas, environmental issues are being addressed as a moral issue and this will aid safeguard the surroundings. Even demographic statistics have reflected positive responses to this issue. With these signs of stabilizing the global environments, chances of preserving the ecosystems that are surviving and micromanaging them for the benefit of humankind remain strengthened.

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

How Soccer Explains the World Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

How Soccer Explains the World - Essay Example Franklin Foer, whilst penning this book has taken a close look at the role that soccer has played in the global cultivation of competition, mad rivalry that has sparked off a number of controversies, varied sagas and what not. He has discussed issues like world trade as well as the linkage of the Western culture where soccer celebrities like Zidane, Ronaldo and Beckham are perceived to be the biggest that there were and still are in the world. They have no less a value when we compare them to American President Bush or even the beheaded Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. There are the sport mad societies that he has openly discussed as well as the role of this game in religions like that of Islam, the phenomenon like hooliganism and so on and so forth. The justification that Foer has provided raises quite a few eye brows since there is enough food for thought as concerns to the game itself and the working methodologies which go hand in hand with the Western way of doing things, one such igniting a level of competition that is bound to be remarked as unmatchable right from the onset. Franklin Foer has remained passionate throughout his book, so much so that his passion knows no boundaries whilst raising an energy which looks all the more contagious than anything else. The religious sentiments that he has brought forward are however a step further than the passion that he has discussed in his book courtesy the game itself. Foer has made sure that his book brings to life with the portraits and profiles of different players like the ones hailing from Nigeria and then there are the issues which restrict sports participation on the part of the Iranian women as well. There are the parallel worlds of Brazilian soccer as well as politics which Pele went into and hence game became so much more politicized as a result of this. What Foer wants to highlight is the fact that the aspect of globalization has

Monday, October 7, 2019

English Employment Law Study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

English Employment Law Study - Essay Example Self-Employed Individuals- Self-employed individuals are regarded as those individuals who are independent and run their business own. These individuals can also be duly considered as self-regulating contractors who are responsible for making broad regulations in order to attain predetermined business targets. It is worth to mention that self-employed individuals are   responsible for adopting   as well as implementing   broad decisions for smooth conduct of business (Kemp Little, 2012). A big similarity between the workers and the employees in the organizational context of the UK is that both of them are covered under common statutes of employment law. These include Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Employment Tribunals Act 1996, Employment Rights Act 1996, Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998. All these laws are enacted by the government in order to defend the rig hts of the employees as well as the workers belonging to different organizations of the UK (Kemp Little, 2012). Employees - All the employees in the UK are covered with special laws that eventually protect their respective rights by a considerable level. The basic understanding of these laws and statutory employment protection legislation apply to all those employees who work in diverse organisations despite their status i.e. higher, lower or middle level employees.   Employees are entitled to all major rights as long as they serve the basic purpose. of performing their