The Importance of Integrity and Professionalism in Nursing Essay

The Importance of Integrity and Professionalism in Nursing - Essay Example From this paper it is clear that  the idea of dignity is also present in the nursing code of ethics given by the ANA which demands a respect for human dignity that can only come through being professional when a nurse approaches his/her profession. This concept of an inherent dignity of a human being who deserves to be treated with integrity is certainly not a new one since the time of ancient philosophers, it was accepted that human beings are endowed with special qualities that have set them apart and make them different from other living things.This discussion highlights that  thus human beings and the individuals under the care of the nurse have to be treated in a professional manner and when it comes to recent development in nursing, one of the key elements of professionalism and integrity appears to be confidentiality. This is because the assurance of confidentiality promotes and strengthens the integrity of the relationship between nurses and patients and this in turn prom otes patient care and recovery. The principle of respect concerning the autonomy of the patient is an acknowledgement of the right of the patient to have control over his/her information. This includes the right to decide who has access to his or her personal information and it is the responsibility of caregivers to make sure that this right is not violated.  Professionalism and integrity also teach nurses the idea of their duty and the ethical guidelines given by the ANA show us that the first duty of the nurse is towards the patient.  

The american dream Essay Example for Free

The american dream Essay The American dream, isn’t this what everyone is chasing? Isn’t this why people work so hard and go to extreme lengths just to achieve this â€Å"Dream†? Owning a home, having a family, and basically living care free is the â€Å"dream† that is projected, but is this goal that so many people are told to strive for even obtainable? There is a belief that once this goal is achieve all the troubles will some how fly out the window, but sadly that isn’t true. The American dream itself is nothing easy to gain, and the quest for this dream can tear anybody that isn’t ready apart. Through Jackson’s â€Å"The Residue Years† and Diaz’s â€Å"This Is How You Lose Her†, they were able to show how difficult it is to achieve the â€Å"dream† and how the journey could affect not only the person striving for it but also the people around them. With both of their unique writings styles they are able to let the reader feel connected with the person on a personal level. Champ from â€Å"The Residue Years† and Ramon from â€Å"This Is How You Lose Her† are two characters that are working towards the American dream, but don’t see how everyone around them is affected by their actions. At times chasing a certain dreams can cause a person to neglect the people and situations around them. The odds are already stacked against anyone who is not white, especially when trying to achieve the American dream or should i say White Dream. The problem with a lot of people are they are trying to obtain something that is not for them, for example the American dream is a belief that has been already thought out for everybody, and if this dream isn’t met then a person is considered unsuccessful. Why chase a dream that was only meant for certain people, like Champ said â€Å"You’re right, not everything’s about race. But what if this is? (Jackson 80)†. Champ is trying to reach this goal and keep his family from falling apart while trying to provide for his girlfriend, mothers, and two little brothers by selling the same drugs his mother is hooked on. He wasn’t good enough at basketball to go pro and doesn’t believe furthering his education will give him what he wants. Champ, an African American male, couldn’t play basketball so he sell drugs, fits the stereotype doesn’t it. Ramon on the other hand, a Latino male, been in America for ten years working at a bread factory trying to achieve the American dream with his wife back home and his mistress in the states supporting him. Although Ramon desires a house, but understand that he is already at a disadvantage because of his race, Hes been talking about the house he wants to buy, how hard it is to find one when youre Latino. (Diaz 30). Both characters believe that a house is the answer to their problems and doing everything in their power to get it. This land of opportunity but limits those opportunities to the ones who desire it the most, isn’t that funny? As a reader all you can do is cheer for or hate the decisions these two characters to beat the In this world where there is barely any options or opportunity, at times love is your strength and your weakness. On Both characters journey to the American dream the same people that they have envisioned living the dream with are the same one’s who are holding them back, their loved ones. Ramon and Champ we not trying to prove society wrong, but also the people they loved. Champ feels like he can’t let his family down and he has to do everything in his power to assure that he doesn’t, but as I said for my family for all of us, I cant let this dream defer, wont let it fall apart. (Jackson 281). The same people who Champ is trying to take care of are the ones holding him back, his mother relapsed, his little brother is becoming a problem, and his girlfriend is on his case. Champ also gets robbed at a drug deal gone wrong and even by his so called â€Å"real estate agent†. Champ sees everything he has worked hard for crumbling before his very eyes and it’s all thanks to the family that he wants to save. Ramon on the other hand just wants that house because he believes it’s the gateway to a better life. The woman he is trying to bring into this better life is the same person who doesn’t believe in him, He rubs at his stubble. What if i find the place? You want me to make the decision myself? I dont think it will happen. (Diaz 32). With no one by their sides and their backs against the wall, you just start to feel for these characters. If their loved ones aren’t behind them, then who is? The sad thing about the American dream is not everyone will see it. Ramon hard work paid off, he was able to make his dreams come true, Look, he says holding up the paperwork. Look. He is almost pleading. Im truly happy for him. You did it mi amor. We did it, he says quietly. Now we can begin. Then he puts his head down on the table and cries(Diaz 38). This emotional scene in the book is heartwarming and touching, just to see a hardworking hispanic male have the ability to make his dreams into a reality in American is something that should be applauded. Sadly the same thing can’t be said for Champ. Champ’s hard work and huge heart wasn’t enough,â€Å"He digs into my jeans and lifts the sack into view, my work rocked up and wrapped in clear plastic. They toss up cuffed into their hard back seats and boom the door shut(Jackson 340). Despite everything he tried to do for his family, at the end the person who he was trying to save is the main reason he got arrested. Champ was part a business he didn’t belong in because he wanted the better life for his family, he selling drugs so that he could provide for his loved ones ,not keep the money. Champ may have been a criminal in some peoples eyes but would you label someone who just trying to provide a criminal? Sometimes you make it or you go down trying and sadly, the guy that everyone was counting on couldn’t come through. Through both Jackson’s and Diaz’s works they were able to show how difficult chasing the american dreams can be, and make the reader feel for the characters and what they’re going through; and also how hard times can get when trying to pursuit ones true happiest. After reading both stories the question that was left to be answered is, do the ends justify the means?

Schrodinger Was A Genius Philosophy Essay

Schrodinger Was A Genius Philosophy Essay The task isnot so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.   à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢Ã‚  Erwin Schrodinger. Schrodinger was an intelligent man who worked in all fields of science. In his work with atoms, he had changed and improved the atomic model as they knew it. Statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, color and its perception, the general theory of relativity, unified field theory, particle physics, philosophy, the history of science, molecular genetics, and, especially, quantum mechanics-the multifaceted genius Erwin Schrodinger studied and contributed to all these fields in the early 20th century and earned half of the 1933 Nobel Prize in physics for his major accomplishment in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger equation. He even invented a cat that possessed the amazing property of being alive and dead at the same time. The proverbial nine lives of an ordinary cat pale in comparison (Rosen). Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrodinger was born on August 12, 1887, in Vienna, Austria, to Rudolf and Emily Schrodinger (Rosen). His father was a well working chemist, painter and botanist, who owned an oilcloth factory. Schrodingers father, Rudolf Schrodinger, ran an oilcloth factory, but his true passions were painting and botany (Oakes). According to Rosen, Until age 10, Erwin was schooled at home, where he learned to speak both German and English, as both languages were spoken there. In 1898, he entered gymnasium (equivalent to high school in the United States). There he excelled in all fields but disliked the classes that required rote memorization. For example, Erwin loved physics, mathematics, and Latin grammar, which are all strictly logical, while he hated memorizing dates and facts. He grasped the physics and mathematics material right away, without doing any homework, and was easily able to solve problems in them immediately after class. After graduating from the Akademi sche Gymnasium in Vienna in 1906, Schrodinger entered the University of Vienna, where he first developed an interest in theoretical physics under the tutelage of Friedrich Hansenohrl. Upon receiving his Ph.D. in 1910, Schrodinger took a position at the universitys Second Physics Institute as a laboratory assistant to the experimental physicist Franz Exner (Oakes). Schrodinger was an expert in many fields, an atomic theory was one of them. He said electrons are to miniscule and move to fast to describe exactly where they are. (Brainhoney 4.04) He said that the electrons move around a given shape, a cloud. A powerful model of the atom was developed by Erwin Schrodinger in 1926. Schrodinger combined the equations for the behavior of waves with the de Broglie equation to generate a mathematical model for the distribution of electrons in an atom. The advantage of this model is that it consists of mathematical equations known as wave functions that satisfy the requirements placed on the behavior of electrons. The disadvantage is that it is difficult to imagine a physical model of electrons as waves (chemed.chem.edu.purdue). The fundamental equation of wave mechanics. It describes the wave function à Ã‹â€  of a particle such as an electron. There is a time-dependent Schrodinger equation and a time-independent Schrodinger equation. The time-independent Schrodinger equation is used to calculate energy levels and wave functions of quantum-mechanical systems such as atoms, molecules, solids, and nuclei. In three dimensions the time-independent Schrodinger equation is , where is the Laplace operator, m is the mass of the particle, E is its total energy and V is its potential energy. The Schrodinger equation was put forward by Erwin Schrodinger in 1926 and solved by him for the hydrogen atom. The equation is not exactly solvable for any other atomic and molecular system. In general, approximation techniques and/or the use of computers are needed to obtain accurate solutions to the Schrodinger equation for systems with more than two particles (Rennie). Also, besides working with atoms, Schrodinger had develop ed another theory called Schrodingers cat. He suggested a closed box containing a sample of radioactive material, a tube of cyanide, and a cat. The apparatus was to be constructed so that decay of a nucleus ejected a particle, which activated a mechanism to break the tube of cyanide. After a certain time, if a nucleus had decayed the cat would have died; if not the cat would still be alive. Schrodinger pointed out that, according to our way of interpreting quantum mechanics, the nucleus had neither decayed nor not decayed until an observation was made, and it followed that the cat was neither dead nor alive until someone opened the box and observed it (Rennie). Schrodinger was a genius, and has not had his model disproven yet, for science cannot look deeper into the atom currently. The difficulty that Schrodinger was showing is this: as long as quantum behavior is confined to the atomic and subatomic worlds, it works superbly and people must and can accept it. But quantum mechanics should also apply to the macroscopic world, the world of cars, cakes, and cats. Yet the macroscopic world does not exhibit quantum behavior. Schrodinger was on to something very deep, as this problem is still under investigation (Rosen). Schrodinger also tried his hand at the theory of relativity, which was unsuccessful. He studied electromagnetism and relativity and tried his hand, unsuccessfully, at a unified field theory, an idea that Einstein was working on at the time. (Rosen) Erwin Schrodinger was a person of many interests, into which he was capable of delving deeply. His many contributions to human culture were mostly in physics, but also in such near and far fields as color perception, biology, history, and philosophy. Schrodinger inspired others to develop ideas and make their own contributions in various fields. His most important achievement was the Schrodinger equation, for which he shared the Nobel Prize. The idea for which he is best known beyond the physics and chemistry communities is surely Schrodingers famous alive-and-dead cat, which continues to haunt the thoughts of physicists and philosophers to this very day. (Rosen) Schrodingers own words best describe his original genius: The task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.

aristotle :: essays research papers

In my opinion the consequences of our actions should play as a reminder in our effort to assess what is ethical behavior and what is not. It can be said as a reminder because, individuals may learn from their actions. The consequences of their actions are either ethical or not. Therefore, every time the individuals look back to their actions, they will remember whether the actions have left them a good result or not. Thus, they will create a habit that may help them to make choices on whether their actions are ethical or not. According to Aristotle’s theorizing of agency, there is a link between ethics and the idea of responsibility to actions performed voluntarily. Based on this explanation, individuals can actually choose their actions assessing which behavior is ethical and which one is not. Individuals live according to moral virtue, which means that they are involved in choosing actions properly. However, there is a moral question that keeps coming up, which is how the individuals choose the right course of action in any given situation. Human beings are both rational and passionate creatures. With their intelligence and emotion or desire, human beings make their decision. They realize that they have a natural function to choose what they think is right and wrong to obtain the â€Å"supreme Good.† More over if a human being follows his or her rational principle, he or she will reach the idea of a good life. The definition of a good life may be different for everyone. However, based on the Aristotle’s ethical theory, it is said that a good life is reached when individuals have fulfilled their proper natural function. There are two modes of thoughts whereby the practical mind apprehends variable, contingent truths. They are: art or technical skill and prudence or practical wisdom. The art of technical skill is the state where an individual make something with the involvement of true course of reasoning. With this skill, individuals can choose and make their decision with reasoning. Therefore, the effort of assessing what is ethical and what is not is made with this skill. Prudence or practical wisdom is where the individuals choose practical actions that are conducive to the sorts of goods. This is also where the individuals decide to take actions that are either good or bad for them. aristotle :: essays research papers In my opinion the consequences of our actions should play as a reminder in our effort to assess what is ethical behavior and what is not. It can be said as a reminder because, individuals may learn from their actions. The consequences of their actions are either ethical or not. Therefore, every time the individuals look back to their actions, they will remember whether the actions have left them a good result or not. Thus, they will create a habit that may help them to make choices on whether their actions are ethical or not. According to Aristotle’s theorizing of agency, there is a link between ethics and the idea of responsibility to actions performed voluntarily. Based on this explanation, individuals can actually choose their actions assessing which behavior is ethical and which one is not. Individuals live according to moral virtue, which means that they are involved in choosing actions properly. However, there is a moral question that keeps coming up, which is how the individuals choose the right course of action in any given situation. Human beings are both rational and passionate creatures. With their intelligence and emotion or desire, human beings make their decision. They realize that they have a natural function to choose what they think is right and wrong to obtain the â€Å"supreme Good.† More over if a human being follows his or her rational principle, he or she will reach the idea of a good life. The definition of a good life may be different for everyone. However, based on the Aristotle’s ethical theory, it is said that a good life is reached when individuals have fulfilled their proper natural function. There are two modes of thoughts whereby the practical mind apprehends variable, contingent truths. They are: art or technical skill and prudence or practical wisdom. The art of technical skill is the state where an individual make something with the involvement of true course of reasoning. With this skill, individuals can choose and make their decision with reasoning. Therefore, the effort of assessing what is ethical and what is not is made with this skill. Prudence or practical wisdom is where the individuals choose practical actions that are conducive to the sorts of goods. This is also where the individuals decide to take actions that are either good or bad for them.

The New Deal was not a complete Success

In the subsequent pages I will explain the failures and successes of the New Deal. I will show how statistics do not show the true accomplishment of the New Deal. I will look at the criticisms Roosevelt faced and how he had come to power when America was on her last leg. When Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power in March 1933 he had America dazzled by his magnetic personality and captivating charisma. He embraced America and held it closely to his heart. He loved it and could see that Herbert Hoover's reign over America had destroyed her. His New Deal was a fresh and exciting way of repairing the once great America. His popularity was undeniable and showed the support he was getting for the New Deal among the Americans. He gave assurance and hope to those who lived in ‘Hoovervilles' to those who queued up for ‘Hoover Stew'. These nicknames were given to the food handouts and shanty towns to demonstrate what Hoover had done to them. Roosevelt's aims were simple and tackled all that was wrong with America; Get the unemployed back to work, protect their savings and property, provide aid for the sick, old and unemployed, get the industry and agriculture back to it's norm and finally restore confidence in the banks. He set up many Alphabet Agencies and passed many Acts to try and conquer the evil that was Hoover's pandemonium. First of all I shall explain the successes. Roosevelt stopped the depression getting any worse. When he came to power in 1933 America had a much greater confidence in her economy. His own poise helped development in Wall Street. The GDP increased by sixty percent between 1933 and 1939, in six years private investment in industry increased by five times and consumer products bought increased by forty percent. People queuing up for food a was just another image of the past. Millions of people got relief, food, clothes and shelter, and it was this emergency relief that prevented them from starving. Many ordinary people were helped with government social security and welfare schemes. This wasn't just for emergency either, it continued in the future. The most affected by the depression were farmers and Roosevelt made sure they were looked after in the New Deal. By the mid 1930s farmer's incomes were rising, especially those with larger farms. Farmers definitely benefited. The New Deal assisted in letting farmers and home owners to stay in their homes. The HOLC was set up and low interest loans were given to home owners. This helped them to cope with mortgage repayments, that were previously out of control, when out of employment. For farmers they were given help through the Farm Credit Administration. For the old, sick and unemployed they had no security, financially or socially. In 1935 the Social Security Act set up a system of national insurance. The elderly were given old age pensions, the unemployed had benefits and the handicapped had financial support. The government, employers and workers paid contributions that funded it. The unemployed were a priority so the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) gave grants to state and local governments to stabilise the jobless. The projects the New Deal provided helped to build the foundations for future affluence. The schools, roads, dams and many more buildings rekindled America. The Public Works Administration (PWA) constructed many public buildings of the USA such as hospitals and city halls. The ‘Dustbowl' regions were seriously affected by the depression and over-farming had led to the ruin of the land and serious lack of interest from business. But the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) restored the valley in seven states. It built several major dams to generate cheap electricity for those ninety eight percent who hadn't got it. It also offered leisure activities on recently built lakes. The Tennessee river developed into being navigable and brought great business interest to the valley. The land was poor so the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) completed useful schemes like strengthening river banks, fighting forest fires and combating malaria by controlling the mosquitoes. Mainly to help the land though they planted approximately two hundred million trees, which significantly reduced soil erosion and supplied the crops with shelter belts. Not only did it help the environment but the members benefited. For the three million men under twenty five, who were members of the CCC, it gave them a first involvement in work. Hoover's laissez-faire attitude had made people get used to the fact that federal government had no concern for singular states. But the TVA changed the relationship that was acknowledged by America. State and federal government now were a lot closer and in some cases federal government cut through the powers of state governments. The weaker sections of American society needed central government to get them out of despair. The homeless, old and poor were most desperate and state government couldn't give all the help that was required. The Tennessee Valley was in such a dire condition that one state could not deal with all the difficulties that the valley was suffering with and the seven states were finding it problematic to liaise with each other. Consequently the TVA was made and did in some instances cut through the powers of the state governments. However it did help the area substantially – electricity and irrigation was provided through the building of the dams in addition to employment. Finally, and most importantly, it gave much appreciated and needed hope to America at her nadir and, in some opinions, saved American democracy. The 1930s were looking bleak at the end of the twenties but Roosevelt came in as a superhero, to save those who were despondent and long suffering. Those, once omitted by the depression and unfair politics, black people and farmers, were now involved. Why certain people supported the New deal is apparent but others are uncertain. Farmers and white unemployed people obviously wanted to support the New Deal because they would prosper from the policies. They gained financial support and the economy boosted meaning that the ‘Roaring Twenties' looked achievable once again. But what really stumps many historians is why so many black people supported Roosevelt and voted democratic (the largest number of black people to vote democratic since the American Civil war of 1861-65). Many of the New Deal agencies and acts discriminated against black people, even resulting in the NRA being commonly renamed the ‘Negro Removal Agency' as they were pushed out when levels of wage were regulated. Roosevelt did not take actions to get black people equal rights for fear of losing his majority of voters, white southerners. However he did sign an anti-lynching bill. Directly the president showed little concern for them but on the contrary did have people who worked for him that did care and even employed some black people. Even his wife Eleanor showed her care for their welfare. Overall the New Deal mainly reduced employment from 1933 to 1937 (1933 – fifteen million unemployed, 1937 – under eight and a half million unemployed) and millions of jobs were created. Despite his critics few turned to extremism in the form of communism or fascism unlike his European counterparts. Nonetheless the New Deal did have some failures and it's own opposition. One of the problems was not with the New Deal but in fact Roosevelt himself, in that he was paradoxicaland kept changing what he wanted to do. The laws he set were changed so quickly that the American people didn't know where they stood. Some felt that he was dictator like and had too much control. Because of this his critics spoke out more confidently and made some reconsider their opinion of him. The Supreme Court was wholly against the New Deal and declared some acts like the PWA and AAA as unlawful. This caused parts of the New Deal to be overruled by Congress. Another problem was that big businesses still continued to be powerful and emasculated Roosevelt's policies. Hoover's laissez-faire attitude was appreciated by employers and because of this many begrudged the New Deal. They didn't want government prying into business and economy and as a result larger companies hired thugs to assault union leaders and terrorize workers on strike for better working conditions and increased pay. In 1937 ten demonstrators were shot dead by police and ninety wounded during a steelworkers strike in Chicago. This discouraged employees to ask for pay and was potentially a threat to the economy. The New Deal helped the poor, sick and unemployed financially. But the very poorest were left out in the cold. The Social Security Act came to power to help monetarily but it excluded twenty percent of the workforce as well as five million farm workers and domestics in anguish. There was no source for state-paid medical care. In 1941 the poorest twenty percent were earning only four percent of the national income while the richest twenty percent were contributing forty nine percent to it. There were many poor people who could barely afford food at the price it was but when the AAA helped rise prices to increase farmer's salaries this caused an even bigger problem for the millions of jobless Americans. Farmers with big farms profited from the New Deal but the small time farmers felt it hindered them along with farm labourers and sharecroppers, who were mainly black. These sufferers tended to live in rural America where poverty was rife, specifically southern America. An enduring drought in 1934-5 hit these already destitute states and turned the soil to dust. There was no rain and desert was spreading like wild fire. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado were known as ‘Dustbowl'. The ‘Okies' set off to find work in California but instead experienced adversity. Another huge group who suffered at the hands of the New Deal were black people. There was attempts in the New Deal to tackle their civil rights but they did not go far enough. Unfortunately Roosevelt put his ego first and knew that by giving black people rights he would lose his support from the southern democratic who were deadly against giving black people equality. The emergency relief was essential for the thirty percent of black people who depended on it but there was no specific laws to combat their own distress from the depression. The 1920s were the high point of American history and industry. Everyone was confident and had no worries. Spending was high and investment was soaring. But when the crash hit everyone became disheartened. The Americans put up with Hoover's pathetic excuse for a presidency and there seemed to be no future. When Roosevelt came there was hope again that the ‘Roaring Twenties' would be resurrected but America was far from it. Despite Roosevelt's best efforts by 1937 Americans were only spending and investing about seventy five percent of what they had in 1929. The most considerable and, in my opinion, the most reputation ruining encumbrance of the New Deal was that unemployment remained high for a majority of Roosevelt's years as President. Up to 1937 the figures were decreasing from a 1933 figure of fifteen million to eight million, three hundred thousand in 1937. But because of the rising national debt of two hundred and fifty million dollars (big compared to the Hoover debt of nineteen billion dollars) Roosevelt had to cut back on government spending. This was calamitous and accordingly the economy plunged. Unemployment rose to ten and a half million as a direct result of industrial production falling by a third. By 1938 Roosevelt saw his faux pas and increased government spending in the hope to recover from this fiasco but by 1940 the 1937 level was still not met. Agencies like the CCC and PWA were labelled as forced labour because of the low pay and creating work for the sake of it. The government money funded all this so in effect by lowering the money spent by government you stopped all the jobs. Others critics said that yes America gained from the schools, hospitals and courthouses courtesy of the PWA and WPA but it was pointless work created to make Roosevelt look good. The New Deal was viciously attacked by economists who complained that the New Deal policies were short term affairs and the future of America was still dubious. They believed that those who counted on the New Deal were being conned as all the evidence clearly showed that in the near future their jobs would be gone. Also the government could reduce unemployment but could never stop it fully. They endeavoured to contain it but it was not enough. William Leuchtenburg thought that World War two got America out of the depression. Finally the last failure was that the cost was too great and a lot was wasted. For the WPA millions of dollars were spent on wages and money was given out like sweets. There was all the loans to banks, money for farmers, money to soup kitchens for necessities like blankets. All of this was seen as vital but some felt that money was being literally thrown away because Roosevelt couldn't hope to spend the real amount needed on solving unemployment. The rich and Republicans were bitter because of the taxes increasing. They felt that government should maintain a laissez faire attitude and stop controlling their traditional freedoms. They had liked Hoover's way of thinking. They liked his idea that people should be individually strong, help themselves and that the wealthy should be left alone to make money and not reprimanded for it. Their opinion differed greatly from the average American and so Roosevelt could not oblige everyone. These rich republicans tried to say that Roosevelt, the saviour of America, was setting up a dictatorship. Their evidence was when in 1936 he had tried to fill the Supreme Court with his loyal democrats so that his policies and ideas would not be overruled. They also said he had socialist ideas as all his policies were aimed at working class, the unemployed and the poor. My opinion is this. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great man who defended those who were in inexplicable poverty. At some points he did change his mind but I think that he thought he didn't need a plan b or something to resort to. When he set up the New Deal agencies and acts he thought he could appeal to America as someone who takes action. When some acts were declared unlawful I think he was shocked. After the depression everybody was like zombies, dead to their surroundings because there was no one to help. Yet here is someone who is trying to help and he is criticised and made out to be a dictator. Personally I find this shameful. Repairing the broken situation was the clear way forward. But Herbert Hoover had chosen to leave America to lick her own wounds and only took action when it was too late. Hoover had given big businesses the foot up they needed and they were more powerful that the government itself. Roosevelt cannot be blamed for larger companies' power. Money equalled power and the wealthy were always going to come out on top. He set up all these acts and agencies and successfully saved many farmers from inevitable mountains of debt and stopped starvation for millions. There were some who were left out of this but these were the people that every society has, even today. They are the ones who are destined to fail, never seize an opportunity and lack a killer instinct. There is no desire to get out of their situation and therefore Roosevelt could not help these people. Black people did suffer and those who lived in rural areas and Roosevelt did neglect the rights of black people but he did show his support in subtle mannerisms. For instance his wife cared deeply for their wellbeing, he employed black people to work on major projects like Mary McLeod Bethune who was in charge of the National Youth Administration and he also signed an anti-lynching bill. If he was to declare his undying support for them he would be outcast himself and lose his voters. He did put his own self-importance above them but Hoover did far worse and Roosevelt had done so much good he could be forgiven for being restrained in his approach to black people. To help the rural areas he greatly increased business through the TVA and dams. His ideas were fresh and the valley took advantage of the waterways. Unemployment was the biggest issue but there is an explanation. Using the 1928 figures as a comparison Roosevelt didn't get the figures back but after such a profitable economical peak and then an immense misfortune it would be absurd to expect him to get them back, in fact impossible. But the main issue I have is that the critics were usually the people who were not affected by the crash. The wealthy had a small dent in their bank accounts and nothing that couldn't be fixed with some expensive wine and caviar. The Americans that really suffered valued his unexplainable care for them. He himself was from a wealthy background and could easily have just ignored the poor and get on with helping himself to profits in big companies. But something was so charismatic that it was hard to hate someone who spoke such sense, such vision and concern. Care was like a swear word to Hoover who had no regard for his country's opinion of him. â€Å"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. † Wise words from Roosevelt, and true. Wealthy economists disliked him because he cared. They wanted a laissez-faire, stone-hearted President who didn't give a damn. But Roosevelt took a stand against the Republicans and thank God he did. Regarding the statement I agree to the extent that nothing can be perfect as things have to go back to the drawing board. But I think that considering the circumstances in which Roosevelt was handed America, he did extremely well. He completed his aims. Unemployment was it's lowest since 1933 by 1940, with fluctuations obviously, property was saved thanks to low interest loans and savings were protected, industry and agriculture bounced back, pensions were provided for the old and benefits given to the unemployed and handicapped. Finally America was confident again. The great country America was back and the world was beckoning her to call out her glory once more. And so she did, with Roosevelt firmly behind her all the way. The New Deal was not a complete success Due to the Wall Street Crash in 1933 the New Deal was introduced. The New Deal helped the unemployment problem but did not solve it. The New Deal stopped things from getting any worse in the short term, however in the long term only World War two solved the unemployment crisis. Some historians believe that the New Deal was partly a success and partly a failure. In the opinion I think that the New Deal was a success. The New Deal had aimed to provide relief through the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA), this aimed to provide direct cash to the needy. $500 million has been given to states to help the starving and homeless people. The money was also used for employment schemes, nursing schools (so parents could go out during the day to find a job), soup kitchens, and blankets. The FERA was up to some point a success, for this aim many things had to be provided, if the government had stopped providing money this aim wouldn't be a success. The New Deal planned to re-build the economy by introducing the Emergency Banking Act, which aimed to solve the financial crisis after the Wall Street Crash. Every bank was closed for a four-day ‘bank holiday' and only honest, well-run banks with enough cash were allowed to re-open. The Securities Act forced companies giving out new shares to provide full information about the company to the public. The New Deal never solved the underlying economic problems and the US economy took longer to recover than most European countries. Confidence remained low. Throughout the 1930s Americans only spent and invested about 75% of what they had before 1929. When Roosevelt cut the New Deal budget in 1937, the country had gone back into recession. The Civil Works Administration (CWA) also helped relief. This aim provided temporary work for four million men, school, airport, roads and even 150000 public toilets. The Public Works Administration (PWA) was given funds of $3300 million. It was used to buy materials and employ millions of skilled workers to build schools, housing, hospitals, bridges, courtrooms and dams. The PWA also built ten ships and 50 airports. But this solution was only short-term. The New Deal laws clearly dealt with the problem of poverty among black people and the poorest sector. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) gave the government power to control the prices. They paid farmers to produce less and destroy some of the food they had already produced. They hoped that food prices would rise because there were short supplies. The idea worked-between 1933 and 1939, farmers' incomes doubled. However, the government was heavily criticized for this idea, the government was destroying food and forcing up prices to help farmers at a time when millions in the city were starving. The New Deal did a lot to help agriculture, however did have some problem it helped large firms the most and the problems of ‘dustbowl' continued. Projects such as the Tennessee valley authority (TVA) brought work and had improved peoples standard of living to deprived parts of the city. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was made to assure that all unemployed 18 to 25 year olds were given food and shelter in the countryside. They got paid 1 dollar a week they did conservation work-planted trees, dug canals, cleared footpaths and strengthened riverbanks against flooding. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided jobs for 2.5 million men. But the New Deal was blamed for giving jobs out for the sake of it, in 1941 6 million people were still left unemployed. Only when the USA entered the war the unemployment problem was solved. The New Deal aimed to create a fairer society by using the National Recovery Administration (NRA), The NRA aimed to improve working conditions in the industry and strengthened the position of labour unions against industrial giants. The Wagner act forced all employers to allow trade unions to operate in their companies. The New Deal saw women achieving prominent positions. Eleanor Roosevelt became an important campaigner. The Supreme Court thought that the New Deal did too much. They had to judge whether the New Deal was in line with the terms of the US Constitution. The judges in the court were conservative and did not like the way the New Deal allowed the government to become so involved in the economy. The judges found the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unlawful. Roosevelt did not want the judges to dismantle the whole New Deal. A After he was re elected in 1936 he tried to change the judges so the court was pro New Deal. This did not work, but the court realized they could not change the New Deal. In conclusion I think that The New Deal was a success as the Federal Government got involved for the first time. As well as this acts such as the WPA and the CWA provided relief for the economy. The Banking Act and the Securities Act helped solve financial problems and the AAA helped agriculture. The NRA improved working conditions in industry and women became high achievers. However there were some failures the problem of ‘dustbowl' continued, unemployment did not go away, most New Deal laws were designed to help women rather than men and the New Deal had a lot of opposition. It was the war that finally solved the problem of unemployment.

Mode Of Production in Marxism

Mode Of Production in Marxism The mode of production is a central concept in Marxism and is defined as the way a society is organized to produce goods and services. It consists of two major aspects: the forces of production and the relations of production. The forces of production include all of the elements that are brought together in production – from land, raw material, and fuel to human skill and labor to machinery, tools, and factories. The relations of production include relationships among people and people’s relationships to the forces of production through which decisions are made about what to do with the results. In Marxist theory, the  mode of production concept was used to illustrate the historical differences between different societies economies, and Karl Marx most commonly commented on Asiatic, slavery/ancient, feudalism, and capitalism. Karl  Marx and Economic Theory The ultimate end-goal of Marxs economic theory was a post-class society formed around principles of socialism or communism; in either case, the mode of production concept played a key role in understanding the means through which to achieve this goal. With this theory, Marx differentiated various economies throughout history, documenting what he called historical materialisms dialectical stages of development. However, Marx failed to be consistent in his invented terminology, resulting in a vast number of synonyms, subsets and related terms to describe the various  systems. All of these names, of course, depended upon the means through which communities obtained and provided necessary goods and services to one another. Therefore relationships between these people became the  source of their namesake. Such is the case with communal, independent peasant, state, and slave while others operated from a more  universal  or national  standpoint like  capitalist, socialist and communist. Modern Application Even now, the idea of overthrowing the capitalist system in favor of a communist or socialist one that favors the employee over the company, the citizen over state, and the countryman over country, but its a hotly contested debate. To give context to the argument against capitalism, Marx argues that by its very nature, capitalism can be viewed as a positive, and indeed revolutionary, economic system whos downfall is its dependence on exploiting and alienating the worker.   Marx further argued that capitalism is inherently doomed to fail for this very reason: the worker would eventually consider itself oppressed by the capitalist and start a social movement to change the system to a more communist or socialist means of production. However, he warned, this would occur only if a class-conscious proletariat organized successfully to challenge and overthrow the domination of capital.

Riefenstahl essays

Riefenstahl essays Art, in any shape or form, captivates our interest and emotions. Though Leni Riefenstahl and Ray Muller differ in the approach to film production, both shared similar film techniques. Their films appeals to the audiences emotions, while identifying the subject with the audience. Both film directors use the rhetorical appeal of pathos to reel in their captive audience. In Leni Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will, she portrays a unified and powerful Germany to help persuade crowds to join the Nazi regime through the perceived power Germany evoked on in the world. Muller on the other hand, helps the audience identify and sympathize with Riefenstahl in The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahls life is contrasted with the legend that the world had created. In this documentary, Muller shows the audience how Riefenstahl is human that her life is full of triumphs and failures just like any other human. Though both artists appeal to the audience emotions, their depiction of their subjects greatly differs. Riefenstahl shows Adolph Hitler in a positive light. Triumph of the Will spread propaganda for Hitlers cause. Muller broadened the scope of Riefenstahls life that the public saw. He wanted audiences to see parts of Riefenstahls life other than those moments linked to Hitler and her legend. Muller achieved this goal by filming Riefenstahl in her natural and vulnerable state. He succeeded by filming Riefenstahl with friends and showing the audience that she would not always cooperate; images are linked to what being human is. Riefenstahl and Muller both filmed extraordinary humans. Riefenstahl filmed Hitler and Muller filmed Riefenstahl. Even though their styles and methods differed greatly, we gain great insight and understanding through these films. ...