One Persons Free

One Persons Freedom Fighter Is Another Persons Terrorist Essay Introduction The terrorist attacks in America have since publicized controversial attitudes in understanding and defining terrorism. There is a misconception of terrorism as it was only in actuality brought to light after the attacks in America on 11 September 2001 (Best Nocella, 2004); this has guided many to assume that terrorism arose in light of the 11 September attacks, when actually terrorism did not begin in 2001; nor is it restricted to extremists in the Middle East. Here is where much of the difficulty lies in defining terrorism; thus the now famous quotation, â€Å"One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’. This essay will look at both the way this phrase can be beneficial and inversely cause issues in the objective to define terrorism. It is apparent that there are objective distinctions that can be made that separate the true terrorist from the true freedom fighter. Regardless of derogatory labels or national political ideology these distinctions do exist. Therefore the aim of this essay will be to critically examine the notion that One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter through examining three existential differences that can help to draw a theoretical line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. They lie first in tactical theory; second, in sources for motivation; and third, in the discrepancies of the justifications for the actions of each. It is these three distinctions in contrast to the quote’s implied similarities that will assist in achieving an accurate definition of terrorism. To examine the wider processes involving the application of the terrorist label, the Cuban Revolution’s major figure Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara will be used as a framework and a practical source to refer to as the essay unravels the application of a terrorist label in relation to the abovementioned phrase. This somewhat superficial phrase can be useful as it suggests that the motives and the methods used may be separable. Terrorism is merely a phrase. It is tactical choices in which those who chose to employ terror can ideally do so in achieving any cause they desire (Caplan, 2006 pg. 92). Consequently it is indeed possible for any people who are validating themselves as fighting freedom from an unjust authority to make the choice to use terrorism as a tactical choice in achieving their goal. Secondly the phrase advocates that defining terrorism can become a moral issue. The definition depends wholly on the subjective outlook of the efiner. The terrorist label The struggle in defining the terrorist has been apparent throughout history. Scharf (2001) has also made this discovery as he states that the problem of defining terrorism has vexed the international community for years. Conceptual issues are not the only problem in defining terrorism. Labelling actions as terrorism promotes cond emnation of the actors; a definition may therefore reflect ideological or political bias (Silke, 1998). Silke (1998) goes on to suggest that a misleading trend is a result of ‘attribution bias’ and that it has done nothing other than â€Å"taint terrorism with a pathology aura†. Many of the terrorist labels that have been employed over the years are based on community and individual perceptions creating a subjective definition (Jenkin, 2006 Pg. 3). Following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the use of the word terrorism or terrorist has become an offensive label (Ganor, 2002). These labels may lead to further implications for how countries, populations and individuals define terrorism (DeAngelis, 2009). The psychology of terrorism is marked more by theory and opinion as opposed to scientific research. Assisting in DeAngelis findings are many articles implying that many of the individuals who engage in terrorist activity will contest that they are terrorists but rather freedom fighters (Schwartz, Dunkel, ; Waterman, 2009; Whiteley, 2010). This tethering in with the now famous phrase; One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Before labelling an individual or group of people terrorists or freedom fighters it is important to take into consideration the three differences as apposed to the similarities that the quotation implies: 1. Tactical Choice The first of the three differences is the tactical theory used. The terrorist will employ tactics in order to target civilians (Tavares, 2003 pg. 13). It is however rare for enough civilians to be targeted in order to have any form of physical impact on the states resources. The general aim becomes to separate the greater part of society from its incumbent authorities through the use of fear. Crenshaw (1981, pg: 386) suggests that this is utilized to weaken the powers of authorities that on the contrary result in the terrorist group to be perceived as more powerful. The goal of the terrorists tactics becomes less concrete as they believe that a relatively small attack will result in the overall political goals of their group to be identified. In contrast Ganor (2006) states that freedom fighters do not target civilians however focus their target on armed forces. Their objective then becomes to diminish the militaries resources to the point where the balance of hard power in particular area, shifts into ones own favour leading to the concrete goal of an enemies surrender and capitulation to ones demands (Ganor, 2006). . Sources for Motivation It is stated by most theories that terrorists are motivated by more than just exclusively political goals (Whiteley, 2010). Freedom fighters are motivated by what is encompassed in their name i. e. their quest for liberty; on the other hand terrorists are grounded on a less concrete foundation ranging from a variety of goals, that are not all rationally political. Certain personal goals seem to either misund erstand or directly conflict with the aim of achieving freedom. Jenkins (1983) states that the ultimate terrorist goal is to terrorise in furtherance of an otherwise legitimate political goal rather than just to terrorise; just like when a nation state resorts to war to achieve political goals when diplomacy fails. Jenkins raises a point in relation to the inspiration of terrorist behaviour, stating that learned ideological values are antecedents to terrorist behaviour, not personality defects. The differences in the motivations between a freedom fighter and terrorist are often grounds where the terrorist myths are created. Terrorists justify their actions through exaggerations that consequently result in an inaccurate perception of the world in order to justify their terrorist tactics. The terrorist myth seeks to prove that those who witness terrorism have a misconception of both the world around them and themselves, therefore needing a ‘wake up call’, that of course is in the form of a terrorist attack. This justification will ultimately be to their benefit (Moghaddam , 2006, Pg. 85). This myth is projected to validate what the functions of terrorism are, these include; showing that authorities are impotent, to create a sense of instability in society and to assert the existence of a terrorists power. The goals of a terrorist clearly show that they are less politically focused and more personal; consequently representing less of a fight for freedom and more of a fight to be renown for their power (Whiteley, 2010). In summary of the two abovementioned areas of distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter; Senator Jackson was quoted by Benyamin Netanyahus (1985, pg 18) as stating: The idea that one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter’ cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don’t blow up buses containing noncombatants; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don’t set out to capture and slaughter schoolchildren; terrorist murderers do . . . It is a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word ‘freedom’ to be associated with acts of terrorists. 3. Justification vs. Legitimacy? Many sources suggest that perception is the main influence and commonly the main issue when it comes to defining terrorism (Sorel, 2003; Gibbs, 1989 Jenkin, 2006). Therefore validation of the actions of both a freedom fighter and a terrorist cannot evolve around general society and how they interpret t errorism to be. Perception becomes a significant issue in determining the legitimacy of the justifications for the actions of both a freedom fighter and a terrorist (Jenkin, 2006). For example a state which is under attack will most likely define the attacks as illegitimate and a form of terrorist activity; conversely those who are attacking the state will define their actions as justified. The difference between the true terrorist and the true freedom fighter appear to pivot around the perceived legitimacy of the motives of each. This social perception of the alleged legitimacy plays a large role on deriving a neutral definition. This becomes difficult due to the aforementioned terrorist label as being pejorative, with the term freedom fighter having positive connotations. The difference in terms between terrorists and freedom fighters seems in many ways to hinge upon the perceived legitimacy of the motives of each. As previously stated, the term ‘terrorist’ is usually pejorative, while the term ‘freedom fighter’ often has positive connotations. It is therefore difficult to derive a neutral definition of legitimacy: it remains a social product (Wardlaw, 1989). Many terrorist organisations only recruit a small amount of discontented individuals who support them; this is done through the prolonged influence of norms. There is a steady shift of certain individuals who are separated from society to an accepted morality of terrorism (Moghaddam, 2006). He goes on to suggests that the support networks utilised by terrorist groups are also discontented, however nearly never consist of sizeable groups of people willing to conduct the terror tactics themselves. Nevertheless it is important to consider that the means of moral and logistical support for individuals like Osama bin Laden has differed significantly from the support for someone like Che Guevara (Whiteley, 2010). Guevara was successful and like other revolutionaries often rallied a large number people relatively quickly, openly and most important effectively. It is therefore credible to state that there is a far wider support base for individuals who are freedom fighters. This is evident through the social product of legitimacy given to them by their supporters. Whiteley (2010) goes on to state that terrorists tend to find themselves in minorities because of the small amount of legitimacy rewarded to them or their cause from other citizens. This perspective is supported by the abovementioned self-interested motives of terrorist and the liberation-seeking motives of freedom fighters. Legitimacy can therefore be summed up by the amount of genuine local support given to a particular group (Whiteley, 2010); consequently true freedom fighters that have legitimate reasons for their existence can recruit members easily while terrorists goals lack legitimacy and consequently result in the recruitment of fewer members. Ernesto Che Guevara Historical Context Ernesto Che Guevara was born into a middle class family in Rosario, Santa Fe Province, Argentina on June 14, 1928. He was a Marxist and left Argentina in late 1953 to take part in a communist revolt in Guatemala. Che was an idealist; believing that everyone should be equal and have the same opportunities. Che joined Fidel Castros 26 July movement where guerrilla troops were sailed to Cuba. Landing on 2 December 1956, they were focused on overthrowing Fulgenico Batistas government. In July 1957, Che was assigned command for more than half of Fidel Castros forces as commandant. He led against government forces in the province of Las Villas while growing hatred for Batistas government that grew in size and gained support rapidly. Che sealed victory for Castros forces in December 1958 becoming Castros most trusted advisor leading the international revolution. She soon became the Cuban minister for agriculture; writing a book in 1960 called Guerrilla Warfare to bring about communism throughout the world. Che resigned his posed in Cuba in 1965 and travelled to Africa as well as many other places in order to organise more communist revolts. In 1966 Che surfaced Bolivia where his movement did not grow much support. His movement came to an end on 7 October 1967 when his surviving group members and he were captured and two days later on 9 October 1967 were executed by a Bolivian fighting squad whom were apparently acting on behalf of the CIA whom were training the Bolivian Army (Guevara, 1985). Che Guevara Terrorist or Freedom Fighter After examining the notion of the phrase One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It has become evident that although the phrase implies that there are similarities between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, it can be concluded that there are many aspects that differentiate the true freedom fighter from the true terrorist. In order to successfully complete the examination of this notion; it is required that a conflict within a terrorist organisation be examined. The debate as to whether Che was a terrorist or a freedom fighter arises. Che came to be one of Latin Americas most feared and most famous professional revolutionary (Gall, 1998). Ches investigation of capitalism, imperialism and socialism and his precise tactical position on guerrilla warfare were concurrent to his views of ethics and political practice. His thoughts were concerned with the revolutionary organizations to oppressed individuals, the affiliation between political agency and objective conditions, the interrelation between revolution and imperialism and the link between personal values and revolutionary action. The question raised is whether Che adopted any terrorist characteristics in his apparent fight for freedom. Yes, through this essay there has been an establishment that a terrorist differs to a freedom fighter however the question arises as to whether it is that easy to differentiate the two when they are applied to an icon from the past. Ches tactical choice was not to target innocent civilians but to build and attack a government that promoted in-equality (Guevara, 1985). Although Che and his supporters killed many, there has not been any academic documentation to suggest that he killed innocent civilians. Anderson (1997) made the following discovery: I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere. Che depicted himself as a guerilla fighter and defined a guerilla fighter in his book as: . . . Must have a moral conduct that shows him to be a true priest of the reform to which he aspires. To the stoicism imposed by the difficult conditions of warfare should be added an austerity born of rigid self-control that will prevent a single excess, a single slip, whatever the circumstances. The guerrilla soldier should be an ascetic. The peasant must always be helped technically, economically, morally, and culturally. The guerrilla fighter will be a sort of guiding angel who has fallen into the zone, helping the poor always and bothering the rich as little as possible in the first phases of the war. But this war will continue on its course; contradictions will continuously become sharper; the moment will arrive when many of those who regarded the revolution with certain sympathy at the outset will place themselves in a position diametrically opposed; and they will take the first step into battle against the popular forces. At that moment the guerrilla fighter should act to make himself the standard-bearer of the peoples cause, punishing every betrayal with justice. Private property should acquire in the war zones its social function. For example, excess land and livestock not essential for the maintenance of a wealthy family should pass into the hands of the people and be distributed equitably and justly. (Guevara, 1985) Furthermore, the question of whether Guevaras sources of motivation were of a terrorist kind comes to light. Che was on a quest for freedom and equality. Presently Ches legacy has lived on and people do not remember him for the power he sought to have but for the goal he strived to achieve; Some view Che Guevara as a hero for example, Nelson Mandela referred to him as an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom while Jean Paul Sarte described him as not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age. This was equality and freedom for those who were less fortunate (Compton, 2009) Like a freedom fighter, Che was able to recruit a great deal of support for his movement as he possessed qualities of a true leader. Many perceive Che to have been a great man who has credibility. Because Che was believable, people would in turn believe him. This is because there was a consistency between which Che was and what Che said (Safty, 2002 pg. 112). Despite all the supporting evidence to suggest that Che was a freedom fighter, many do believe that he was a terrorist. Some who were part of the opposing side, who were part of Batsias movement, would have felt that Ches actions were of a terrorist kind. It is important to note however that although Che was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist some people perceived he to be one as their perception was defined differently and they believed that the actions Che was engaging in were of a terrorist kind. Conclusion Ultimately there is a definitive difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. It cannot be implied that one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Many philosophers have concluded that terrorist do not have any right to be classified within a freedom fighting definition. The means of a terrorist do not justify the ends. The abovementioned three distinctions between a terrorist and a freedom fighter outlined in the first paragraph clearly show that the two are completely disparate.

The New Trend in Advertising :: Free Essays Online

The New Trend in Advertising Advertising may have finally found the only medium that can reach the right person with the right message at the right time. What is this groundbreaking medium? As a relatively young medium that’s shaking up the advertising world, the Internet is now considered a way to advertise to mass markets. According to Business Week’s article †The Online Ad Surge,† online advertising only accounts for 4.3% of advertising in the United States, yet the Internet accounts for more than 14% of the country’s media time. With predictions of $9.3 billion in online advertising spending this year, companies are beginning to recognize the Internet as a practicable advertising medium. This essay will provide a summary of â€Å"The Online Ad Surge† and an evaluation of the article. Article Summary Internet advertising has undergone a dramatic change in recent years. Online ads have moved from text-only to flashy, full-motion videos. Jupiter Research analyst Gary Stein states, â€Å"A few years ago, it was kids with green hair selling ads, now Internet ads are mainstream, and part of every company’s media buy.† Although online ads aren’t going to overtake the traditional advertising mediums, the segment is growing at a rate of 7.7% a year. Within the next two years, analysts predict online advertising will be worth nearly $14 billion and will surpass the magazine industry. Online ads offer companies the ability to track every click consumers make through a website and offer the ability to immediately measure an ad’s effectiveness. Other mediums, such as television are feeling the pressure to be more accountable. Until recently, television ratings were never available in real time; however, Nielsen Media Research has implemented technology that allows for minute-by-minute feedback in selected local television markets. Online advertisers are beginning to bundle slots across the media mix. According to the article, â€Å"CNN†¦sold pricey sponsorships for Election Day coverage to companies, such as Samsung and DHL. The condition? Sponsors had to advertise on TV and the Web.† Linking several mediums together benefits both parties involved as components of the media mix can compliment each other. The rush to online advertising has created several problems for companies. The surge in ads has led to clutter, which includes instant messaging ads targeted to the youth market. Another problem is the shortage of available advertising slots.

Bradley Manning Responsible For the Largest Intelligence Leak in the History of the United States Essay

Bradley Manning Responsible For the Largest Intelligence Leak in the History of the United States (Your Name Here) UMUC CSIA 301 Bradley Manning may be responsible for the largest intelligence leak in the history of the United States . The U.S. Government alleges that Bradley Manning was responsible for leaking classified intelligence, causing it to be published on the internet which make it available to the enemy. The Government has charged Manning with 22 charges under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, UCMJ, to include espionage. If convicted, Manning could face confinement for life or the death penalty . In an interview with Frontline, Adrian Lamo, a convicted hacker, states that Manning contacted him via online chat and confessed that he had leaked hundreds of documents to Julian Assange, the editor of a website called WikiLeaks. Type of Breach Bradley Manning is an example of the most dangerous type of enemy, an insider. Insiders pose one of the greatest security threats. The main aspect that makes insiders such a potent threat is the amount of data they have access to . In an interview with Adrian Lamo, Manning boasted about the amount of information he leaked to WikiLeaks. He claimed to have leaked, â€Å"250,000 State Department diplomatic cables and 500,000 classified field reports from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan† . Being charged with espionage, Bradley Manning is one of the most dangerous types of insiders, because the information he leaked potentially put American lives in danger and caused harm to our nation. Bradley Manning was not driven by the same motivation that drives most people who commit crimes such as the ones that Manning has been accused of. Manning was not motivated by financial gain. He claims that he leaked the information because the information needed to be in public view. He has expressed an extreme dislike for the US Army and the way the US Government conducts its self in the global arena. He claims that he could have sold this information to the Chinese or Russians, but instead chose to give it to  WikiLeaks via Julian Assange . How the Breach Occurred The question arises how Bradley Manning gained access to such a large quantity of intelligence. Since September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission has changed the way intelligence agencies handle information sharing. Agencies now share raw intelligence with each other, because it is believed that if that policy had been in place earlier then the tragedy on September 11 could have been avoided. Manning had access to the network know as the Secrete Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet. SIPRNet is where Manning downloaded most of the information he leaked. Manning was an intelligence analyst. His job was information aggregation. He would analyze large amounts of raw intelligence and form it into smaller, more concise reports . This is not what Manning leaked, he leaked raw intelligence. Some of this raw intelligence was uploaded to WikiLeaks via the internet, however the majority of the data was downloaded onto compact disks. Manning recalls one instance to Lamo about downloading data to a disk labeled Lady Gaga. In an online communication with Lamo, Manning wrote, â€Å"No one had ever taken note of him, and no one did now: ‘everyone just sat at their workstations †¦ watching music videos / car chases / buildings exploding †¦ and writing more stuff to CD/DVD’†. In order to download large amounts of raw relevant data, Manning uploaded data mining software. This software allows one to sort or index files on a computer or network. Then a search for key words will select the information based on desired parameters . Lamo suggests this implicates Julian Assange as a coconspirator in espionage with Manning. He claims that Assange gave Manning the parameters for the information that would be the most useful. If it can be proven that WikiLeaks coached or persuaded Manning to steal classified information then everyone involved can be charged with espionage. WikiLeaks operates under the unique model that all sources are unknown to them and the information they are given is unsolicited. If these two conditions are met, WikiLeaks is not guilty of collusion . The Information Security Triad The primary point of damage to the Information Security Triad by Manning is Confidentiality. By downloading raw intelligence from SIPRNet Manning did  not damage the integrity or the availability of the data. This would have been contrary to his goal. Manning planned to release the information. The information would have been useless if it had been altered or made unavailable, and this could have potentially made it easier for him to get caught. He never planned to get caught. Manning was arrested as a direct result of the online chat conversations he had with Lamo, not from the Army discovering what he had been up to. Technological Improvements that Would Help Prevent Recurrence Some technological improvements that could have prevented Manning from stealing classified information would be to disable USB ports through the BIOS and password protect the BIOS. If computers had CD ROMs not burners then it would not be possible to download any information from a network onto a disk using Department of Defense, DOD, computers. It has not been clearly published how Manning was able to upload data mining software on his computer or on the SIPRNet. These points were brought up in a congressional hearing where Senator Collins brought up the point that the intelligence community was already required to have audit capabilities installed by 2007. This could have helped expose the fact that more than a quarter of a million classified documents were downloaded in less than two months. Role-based access to secure systems is also another possible solution. This would mean that all information of a certain clearance level would not be accessible to everyone with that same clearance. Role-based access would be used in conjunction with the mandatory access control that is currently in place. This would have limited the amount of information that Manning would have had access to . The extent of damage Bradley Manning has done to intelligence sharing or US operations overseas cannot be quantified. The effects are too far reaching and still ongoing. Bradley Manning is still being held in prison awaiting trial. Many are calling Manning a whistle-blower. Whistle blowers release specific information of an embarrassing, illegal or negligent nature to right some wrong. Manning potentially put American lives in danger by releasing vast amounts of data from unnamed sources. Manning was operating on the hacker premise that all information should be free. There are people  that protect our freedom and rely on confidentiality of information to stay alive. Manning is not a whistle-blower or a hero as many online publications would suggest. He is a sad case of an individual given to much responsibility; we can only hope our intelligence community moves forward and not backward as a result of Bradley Manning’s actions. Works Cited Affairs, M. P. (2011, March 3). Manning faces more charges for classified leaks. Retrieved from The Official Home Page of the United States Army: http://www.army.mil/article/52773/ Fishman, S. (2011, July 3). Bradley Manning’s Army of One How a lonely, five-foot-two, gender-questioning soldier became a WikiLeaks hero, a traitor to the U.S., and one of the most unusual revolutionaries in American history. Retrieved from New York News & Features: http://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/ INFORMATION SHARING IN THE ERA OF WIKILEAKS: BALANCING SECURITY AND COLLABORATION, S. Hrg. 112-219 (ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION March 10, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg66677/html/CHRG-112shrg66677.htm Lamo, A. (2011, May 24). WikiSecrets. Frontline. PBS. Retrieved from http://video.pbs.org/video/1946795242/ Miles, D. (2012, June 6). News American Forces Press Service. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Defense: http://www.defense.gov/ne ws/newsarticle.aspx?id=116654 Miller, B. H. (2011, September). The Death of Secrecy: Need to Know†¦with. Studies in Intelligence, 55(3), 13-18. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csistudies/studies/vol.-55-no.-3/pdfs/Studies%2055-3%20-7-Oct-2011.pdf Pfleeger, C. P., & Pfleeger, S. L. (2006). Security in Computing (4th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall PTR. Wendy, G. (2011, April). Aggregation: the hidden risk. Computer Fraud & Security, 2011(4), 18-20. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1016/S1361-3723(11)70043-4 Zetter, K. (2011, April 4). Army: Manning Snuck ‘Data-Mining’ Software Onto Secret Network. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/manning-data-mining/

Hanging Tongues

In the article â€Å"Hanging Tongues: A Sociological Encounter with the Assembly line† Thompson (1983) there are many connections between the Physical structure of the beef processing plant and the social structure of those working within it. The layout, design and decor of the beef plant both directly and metaphorically impact on the social structure within the plant, pertaining to (among other examples) a sense of isolation, hierarchies, formalisation and standardisation. The physical layout of the beef processing plant appears to be similar to many other assembly line factories, the ‘kill floor’ as Thompson refers to it, being a large open space with work stations located around the area. Thompson describes an â€Å"Overhead stainless steel rail†¦ curved its way around every work station in the plant. † We see that although physically all the different work stations on the ‘kill floor’ are connected, the connection is mechanical, part of the layout of the factory. Despite the open plan space in the factory there is much isolation among the workers, even though they are all working on the same production line. Although most workers know each other on sight, it is unlikely that they would know more than first names due to the nature of the work they are doing. Each worker on Thompson’s ‘offal’ station was expected to handle 187 tongues per hour, plus cleaning of racks and trays. This is quite a high work rate and there is little time for small-talk with co-workers. This rate required from workers creates a division between the workers who have little time to stop, besides designated breaks and management who seemingly ‘sit behind their desks all day’. Also concerned with the layout of the factory was the separation of the ‘kill floor’ with the executive offices. This layout in the factory underlines the hierarchy of the social structure within the plant. At the bottom of the ladder we have the workers. They work on the ‘kill floor’ which is the dirtiest, most dangerous and most monotonous job. The Management and executives of the company are at the top of the hierarchy, they are separated physically from the ‘kill floor’ as they cannot be seen to get dirty themselves. This would make them subordinates to their ‘equals’ in the business world. Little is noted of the management in â€Å"Hanging Tongues† except that they â€Å"Rarely ventured† to the ’kill floor’ where Thompson’s research took place. Their offices are separate, keeping them isolated from the dirty, dangerous work on the factory floor. The other physical separation in the beef plant was between the inspectors and the workers. There is understandable animosity between the two groups. As they start the inspectors are on a lower wage than the workers. This is presumably because the nature of the inspector’s job is a lot less dangerous, and less physically demanding than that of the ‘beefers’. The only interaction between inspectors and workers is of a negative nature, as the inspector will be telling the worker that the work is not of a high enough standard, this slows the progress of the workers and causes resentment towards the inspectors. Due to this negative interaction, inspectors are kept separate from workers eating â€Å"in a separate lunchroom† according to Thompson. The design and decor of the beef processing plant also contribute to the social structure of the workers. Almost everything on the ‘kill floor’ is made of stainless steel, the benches, knives, tubs etc. This sterile equipment makes a sterile working environment, which makes the workers feel that their workplace is even more impersonal. Some other aspects of decor and design also lead the workers to this isolated mindset. Sealed cement floors and Ceramic tile walls are cold and impersonal. Everything is cleaned down at every break and shift change, as if the workers had never been there. There is no sense of individualism for the workers, instead we see in action the â€Å"metaphor of the organisation as a machine† Morgan (1998). Whereby the workers are not considered as individuals, but as functioning parts of a machine, objects that do their part in order to create a finished product (in this case a butchered cow). Another example of the decor observed by Thompson was that of the safety posters plastered over the walls, reminding workers that they should be wearing safety equipment, and working carefully at all times. This decor around the workspace (where we can imagine that management have pictures of their families instead) creates another division between â€Å"us† (the workers) and â€Å"them† (management). The posters also serve to remind the workers that their jobs are undeniably dangerous, workers being forced to face the fact that every day they are working they are in physical danger from the jobs they do. One last observation about the decor in the factory is the lack of clocks. Management try to control certain aspects of the workers day, this is one way in which they do it. By not letting workers know that their break / end of shift is going to arrive management are trying to avoid the inevitable ‘slacking off’ before the end of a shift, or ducking out early. This control is one thing that workers have tried to regain, as the person at the start of the production line starts â€Å"clanging his knife against the metal† when the break in the line appears. The knife banging gets passed from station to station and Thompson said he knew that â€Å"it was exactly 35 minutes until the end of the line would reach me†. Even though it is really just a symbolic way of gaining some control back, it is an important form of communication between the normally isolated workers. Formalisation, pertaining to rules and procedures implemented at the beef processing plant are an important dimension of organisational social structure. Hatch (2006), states that â€Å"formalization tends to reduce the amount of discretion employees have in performing their work tasks†. The physical structures that the beef plant has that connect with this statement are numerous. The posters about wearing safety equipment are one example; the sterile, dangerous equipment they use is another. Formalisation, according to Hatch, also helps to determine pay levels. In Thompson’s â€Å"Hanging Tongues† we see a specific example of this in the reference note stating that the ‘shackler’ is paid 10cents per hour more than the workers because of the more dangerous nature of his job, dealing with flying hooves, and hooks and chains. Standardisation is a dimension of organisational social structure that is inherent in Thompson’s â€Å"Hanging Tongues†. Much mention is made of the monotony of the work. The workers do the same job, in the same way, day after day. Their surroundings and equipment are always the same. It is this ombination of standardised work and surroundings that connects the social and physical structures in this beef plant. The work may be efficient, but the monotony and the dangerous aspects of the job are crucial factors in the high turnover of staff in assembly line jobs. There are many connections between the physical and social structures of the beef processing plant that Thompson has stud ied. Hierarchies and divisions of labour are common practice in social structure, as in many organisations they are the easiest way to get work done effectively. The same is true of physical structures based upon keeping management away from the dirty work, or ‘kill floor’. What is important is that we can see how these structures impact upon each other making the business what it is. References Hatch, M. J. (with Cunliffe, A) (2006). Organisation Theory: modern, symbolic, postmodern perspectives. (2nd Ed. ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organisation: The executive edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage pp 3-13. Thompson, W. E. (1983). Hanging Tongues: A sociological encounter with the assembly line. Qualitative Sociology 6 (3), 215-237.

Disguise essays

Disguise essays Many characters in the Odyssey use the concept of disguise. The characters use the idea of disguise to help themselves and other characters. There are many examples of the theme of disguise in the Odyssey. Odysseus and his men disguise themselves in the body of the Trojan horse. They do this at the Trojan War to help win the war. ... I sacked the city, killed the men, but as for the wives and plunder, that rich haul we dragged away from the place we shared it round (28). Odysseus and his men disguise themselves as rams to escape the Cyclops. After the Cyclops was blinded the men and Odysseus needed a way to escape. [...] clutching him by the back, tucked up under his shaggy belly, there I hung face upward, both hands locked in his marvelous deep fleece, clinging for dear life, my spirit steeled, enduring... (224). Cyclopss one eye was blinded, by Odysseus; he could not tell that Odysseus and his men were holding on to the rams wool to escape the torturous cave of the Cyclops. Odysseus spends the last part of the poem as a beggar. He does this for two reasons. First he disguises himself to defeat the prisoners and to prove the loyalty of his wife Penelope. He uses a lie to get into the Palace. Look at the clothing on my back-all rags and tatters. Im afraid that the frost at down could do me in (355). When he returns to Ithaca, Odysseus overthrows the suitors and takes his rightful place as King of Ithaca. Athena is another character that uses the concept of disguise during the poem. She appears as a Mentor to aid Telemachas (83). Athena is there to tell Telemachas that his father is not dead. He lives and the gods will not grant him passage home. She goes to comfort Penelope is a disguise (381). The theme of disguise was important to The Odyssey. Most of the important characters used a disguise in one way shape or form. This helped them h ...

Job Interview Advice 9 Ways to Ruin a Job Interview

Job Interview Advice 9 Ways to Ruin a Job Interview Toward the end of last year, U.S. News World Report published an article by Rebecca Koenig entitled Job Interview Mistakes to Avoid. Ms. Koenig highlighted 25 job interview mistakes, and I was inspired to share some of them. Amongst the many blatant interview faux pas, you will find answering your cell phone during the interview, wearing overly casual clothing, and flirting with your interviewer. But its not just these obvious gaffes that will create problems for you with your potential next employer. Here are 9 of my favorite ways to ruin a job interview: 1. Be negative about anything or badmouth an old boss. Never say you didn’t like the kind of work you were doing at your prior job. If you didn’t like something before, the interviewer will assume you probably won’t like the work at the next job either. If you’re asked specifically to name something you didn’t like, find something minor and emphasize what you learned and what you did like. As a side note, also do not act rude or say anything negative to the receptionist. How you treat everyone in the office is part of your interview and will be judged! 2. Be late. When it comes to job interviews, being on time is being late. I don’t care whether your car broke down or your subway stalled or your printer cut off part of the address of the firm. Plan to get to the interview an hour early and none of these events will make you late. And always have the employer’s phone number somewhere where you can’t possibly lose it so if anything does happen (despite your plan to get there an hour early) you can call as soon as you know there is a problem. 3. Question whether you want the job. The interview is not the place to have doubts! Fake it till you make it. After you get a job offer, worry about whether you want the job. If you express doubts even subtly during the interview, you can be sure you won’t get the offer. 4. Apologize for any aspects of yourself or your life. Doubting yourself or any hints of low self-esteem will not help you in your interview. You are who you are and you’ve made the choices you’ve made. Be proud or at least accepting, state the facts as the facts and never apologize! 5. Fail to answer the questions. Too often, job candidates will follow the interviewer’s question with a stream of consciousness answer that does not answer the question that was asked. You might do this out of nervousness. So after each question, take a deep breath, repeat the question to yourself, and make sure you answer it – clearly and concisely. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use the question to make points you want to make. If you can find a way to slip in a story that highlights your accomplishments, go ahead! Just make sure you’re addressing the topic the interviewer wants you to address. 6. Ask salary information. This is a big no-no! You will get your salary information after you get the offer! However, do be prepared with a strategy in case your interviewer brings up the topic. 7. Come unprepared. You absolutely must do your research before every job interview! If you dont look at the company’s website, know the company’s brand and values, and use Google to find out about any newsworthy events, you are not prepared. If you don’t do this research, the interviewer will wonder whether you’ll do your research on the job. A sure sign that you haven’t done your research is asking a question you could have known the answer to by reading a company website. So don’t mess this up! In addition to researching the company, research your interviewer. Know their LinkedIn profile top to bottom – where they’ve worked, what their interests are, and who your common connections are. Come prepared with questions and conversation topics! 8. Use casual/chatty language or get too personal. We all want to be friendly, but don’t get too buddy-buddy with your interviewer. You are interviewing as a professional and your demeanor will be judged. Exhibit the demeanor in an interview that you would exhibit in the office. 9. Lie. I’d rather you make any of the other 7 mistakes listed in this article than mess up on this one. Even if you’re hired, when your lies are discovered you will be fired. What are your favorite interview stories? Please share your successes and bloopers below! A great resume and LinkedIn profile are key to landing any job interview. If you need writing help, check out our  resume  and  LinkedIn profile writing services and then  contact us with your questions.

Trifles vs Ajury of her peers Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Trifles vs Ajury of her peers - Essay Example â€Å"A Jury and Her Peers† on the other hand gives a lot of focus on the characters in the story compared to the objects. It has focused greatly focuses on Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hales character( Gainor, 243 ). The story gives a lot of description that gives the reader deeper access into the minds of the character which would be hard to get by just watching the characters on stage. As such, the readers are able to focus more on the characters in the short stories and not object like in the play. Despite the fact that the male characters have been given less focus in the play and the story, we can see that the story gives greater depth in developing the male characters. This could be attributed to the narrative nature of a story where Susan describes the character in the short story in greater details opening the imagination of the reader (Gainor, 238). The reader also gets to know more about the male characters by reading the short stories compared to watching them act on stage in the