France Military essays

France Military essays In 1783 a French foreign office report stated that if France continued down its long line of defeat after defeat, it would soon become a power of secondary rank limited to Continental Europe. Indeed, France in the years before the revolution could be considered a failure in war and all things having to do with the military. In 1763 The Seven Years War ended, depriving France of much of its colonial holdings in Canada and India. On the continent, the war saw an inferior Prussian army of 22,000 defeat a French army of 34,000. Frances support of the American Revolution beginning in 1778 ended in success for the Americans, but in bankruptcy for the French. Every French initiative during the conflict ended in failure. In 1779 a British fleet of 30 ships turned back a French fleet twice that size bound for an invasion of England. Attacks on the island of Jersey in 1779 and 1781, as well as an attempted siege if Gibraltar in 1783, likewise ended in failure. Why was the most populous, cult urally influential, and richest nation in Europe losing battle after battle? Perhaps a more interesting question would be how did this nation in decline rise to conquer all of continental Europe a few decades later? Yet more interesting is the answer. France under Louis XV and Louis XVI had already made the reforms necessary to transform the French army in to a force that was technologically the same as the one Napoleon used to conquer Europe; all that was needed were changes in its management and a revolutionary spirit. In other words, France during The Seven Years War and the American Revolution wielded the same technological weapon as it did during the Napoleonic Wars. All that had changed was the motivation and the leadership. In a century that counted only sixteen years when the European continent was completely at peace, there were great changes taking place throughout the militaries of the great powers in the 1...

Analysis of One Art

Analysis of One Art Analysis of â€Å"One Art† The opening stanza of Elizabeth Bishops’â€Å"One Art†reveals the clear statement of the poem; the struggle with mastering the issue of loss. Bishop uses the significance of structure and word choice to further the meaning of the poem. She crescendos each stanza to create a firm foundation for the dramatic conclusion, and incorporates expressive words throughout the poem to illuminate the last stanza’s attitude shift from that of carelessness to seriousness. â€Å"One Art† approaches loss in a rather sidelong manner. It does not dive straight in and attack the large issues, but instead begins with meaningless objects. In so doing, Bishop aligns these unimportant possessions with the more significant ones. As the poem progresses, the objects mentioned become increasingly more meaningful, as does their loss. Bishop not only purposely guarantees opportunities to rehearse this art of mastering loss, but supplies materials br anded â€Å"with the intent to be lost.† She forces the second stanza to visualize with the ruminations of the first. Readers learn precisely how to master this art, and are urged to practice to make it into a virtuous habit: â€Å"Lose something every day.† A further instruction counsels the approval of that resulting disorder—the â€Å"fluster†Ã¢â‚¬â€produced by undue agitation. Bishop implements a progressively dynamic, almost uncontrollable, schedule of loss in the third stanza then simply shifts the focus to the next lesson. No longer does she express manageable, solicitous incidents; the poem has moved beyond them to overwhelming concerns: places, names, and destinations. The â€Å"intent† of the first stanza blossoms into the broader intentions of â€Å"where it was you meant to travel† of the third stanza. The reader must supply a relative example to correspond with this line. After Bishop struggles to induce specific details from t he reader she abruptly introduces the lyric â€Å"I† in the very next stanza. Her experiential familiarity, suppressed in the first half of the poem, surfaces as she is clearly experiencing aggravation in the reader’s ability to apprehend the previous lessons of loss. She quickly shifts and summons a specific personal item, â€Å"my mother’s watch,† making tangible the feeling of irretrievable loss. This registry of loss continues to the next line where she is missing â€Å"three beloved houses.† Bishop demonstrates the truth of this loss by exploiting what is, after all, the first true disaster in the poem. The speaker, further emboldened by self-knowledge, begins the very next stanza again with â€Å"I lost.† However, she approaches the unspecified yet concrete type of loss: â€Å"two rivers, a continent,† the loss of which suggests the impermanent nature of earth itself. The tercets have logically built up from small, keys, to larg e, continent, with demonic precision and momentum. Yet the items lost become increasingly personal through each stanza. This movement holds its momentum properly until the final tercet is reached. Bishop introduces the final stanza with a dash, clearly emphasizing breakage and resistance. Loss and love are significantly enjambed within the first two lines of this final stanza. They not only confess how loss and love are bound, but give continuing evidence of â€Å"I love,† risked with a solitary parenthesis in the line. The most intimate words are not understated by being parenthesized but jump out as a temporary withholding as her most prominent resistance to accepting loss is unfolding. There appears a breakdown, not only in the speaker, but in the certainty of the statement â€Å"The art of losing isn’t hard to master† by the addition of â€Å"not too hard† and an admission of strain with the fiercely whispered â€Å"(Write it!)† between the stu ttered double â€Å"like.† Here conflict explodes as the growing tension within the desire to repeat the poem’s refrain yields to the doubts of its accuracy. The imperative self-prompt â€Å"(Write it!)† conveys the immense energy needed to utter the last word of â€Å"disaster.† The repetition of â€Å"like† postpones, ever so fleetingly, the final word that hurts all the more. The inevitability of â€Å"disaster† ironically recalls the fatalism of true loss.

Employee Reward nd Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Employee Reward nd Development - Essay Example Organizational learning has been proposed as a fundamental strategic process and the only sustainable competitive advantage of the future (Vera and Crossan, 2004) as it increases the rate of change, provides flexible organization of structures, continuous improvement, and organizational interactions are actively managed and optimized (Easterling, n.d.). Smith, Araujo and Burgoyne (Vera and Crossan et al (2004) developed a theoretical model with 4I framework linked by four social and psychological processes like intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing. Organizational learning is viewed as a process of change in thought and action among individual and group which is embedded in and affected by the institutions of the organization. It is further argued that tension between assimilating new learning (exploration) and using what has been learned (exploitation) is the basic challenges of organizational learning. The learning organization concept is about building learni ng and knowledge creating capacity in individuals and enabling the effective dissemination of this knowledge through the organization. The learning organization is the product or result of a critical combination of internal change mechanisms concerned with structure, process and human capability allied to continuous environmental reviews which is intended to improve performance (Thomas and Allen, 2006). According to Egan, Yang and Bartlett (2004) organizational learning culture can enhance employee’s job satisfaction and both of these variables influence the organizational outcome variables of motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. The analytic framework of the learning organization developed by Watkins and Marsick (Egan, Yang and Bartlett, 2004) provides a lucid and broad definition of the construct of learning organization which not only identifies underlying learning organization dimensions but also integrates such dimensions in theoretical framework which specifies interdependent relationship and was also agreed by Ortenblad (Egan, Yang and Bartlett 2004)). Vince (2001) while examining the organizational learning in Hyder Plc mentioned that the conceptualization which indicates that â€Å"individual staff can benefit from on-the-job learning and training which is highly practical and applied† (p.1326) and further argued that organizational learning is visible in the organizational dynamics which is created from the interaction of politics (power relations) and emotions. According to Miner and Mezias (1996) various theories have tacitly assumed a fixed world of exogenous conditions to which organizations must adapt while ‘learning’ carries a positive connotation in many cultures. Behavioral learning scholars claim that incremental learning is common and has useful outcomes. It is pertinent to mention that incremental and radical learning are both meaningful concepts that enhance survival and prosperity while may c ause damage the organizational culture. According to Yeo (2002) behavioral or adaptive learning approach clarifies that learning is directly associated to some action which follows it. Cognitive learning assumes that learning is more than just applying rules or responding to small scale problems and making basic elements of a subject. Sanchez, Vijande and Gutierrez (2010) mention that

Armitages and Keeble-Allens Undertaking a structured Literature Review Essay

Armitages and Keeble-Allens Undertaking a structured Literature Review or Structuring a Literature Review, Tales from the Field Article Critique - Essay Example The study conducted by the two researchers relies on a number of credible secondary sources for the literature review. The primary data on the other hand was gathered from the field with a sample of four master students. The methodology applied by the researchers is credible in that it abides by established methods of research. In particular, the researchers relied on unstructured interviews to gather primary data from the sample during their supervisory sessions. Critique of the Evidence Used During research, it is normally in order to use a in some cases, especially if the population under study is extremely high or when associated costs of conducting the study are extremely high (Patton 2002). While the researchers used a small sample in conducting their study, it is beyond doubt that the evidence used was adequate and accurate. The data from the unstructured interviews with master students was adequate and is representative of what other students encounter while conducting their studies at the undergraduate and master levels. The study also –provides evidence based on 18 secondary sources that are recent (from 1995 to-date), credible and authored by authoritative sources.

Graphology :: Handwriting School Education Essays

Graphology Introduction The belief that handwriting is a sign of the inner personality is very old. The first serious attempt to analyze handwriting seems to have been that of Camillo Baldi, an Italian scholar, who published a book on the subject in 1622. As literacy spread, handwriting analysis became popular, being practiced as an art form by such literary figures as Goethe, Poe, the Brownings and Dickens. Jean Hippolyte Michon coined the term "graphology" in 1875. Michon systematized handwriting analysis by associating hundreds of graphic signs with specific personality traits. Around the turn of the century, the French psychologist Alfred Binet performed several experiments with handwriting analysis as a device for testing personality. Binet claimed that handwriting experts could distinguish successful from unsuccessful persons with high accuracy. The German school of handwriting analysis, led by Ludwig Klages, developed a subjective and esoteric approach to graphology, and apparently never even attempted experimental verification of its claims. There is today no single theory or method that dominates graphology. The French school concentrated on isolated signs as specific indicators of personality, and the Germans sought to make subjective interpretations based on a total impression of a person's handwriting. In 1929 M. N. Bunker founded "graphoanalysis" as a compromise between these two extreme positions The language and techniques of graphoanalysis seem to be more or less the common graphological practice in the United States today. (Bunker 1971). Bunker founded the International Graphoanalysis Society, which now offers an 18-month correspondence course for analysts. The society is based in Chicago and claims 10,000 active members. The Institute of Graphological Science in Dallas also offers courses and accreditation in graphology, but it is not affiliated with the Graphoanalysis Society. Unless indicated otherwise, I will use the term "graphologist" to refer to a practitioner of any school of handwriting analysis for per sonality assessment. Graphological technique Even though there is no canonical school of graphology, some discussion of the practice may be helpful. Remember that the basic assumption underlying graphology is that handwriting is an expression of the personality; hence, a systematic analysis of the way a person forms words and letters will reveal traits of personality. The graphologists are fond of repeating, "Handwriting is brain writing." Graphologists look for such features as the slant of characters, the size of individual letters, angularity and curvature, and such non-graphic features as the pressure of upward and downward strokes. In most systems, the slant of the letters is very important.

Freedom and Equality

Although freedom and equality are values that American’s hold dear to their hearts, they are difficult to enforce to an entire nation from the perspective of the US government. Freedom was easier breaking from the colonial days to a new constitutional government, one reason was because there was less people to govern, and secondly because only first class citizens (white male) had any true freedom to do whatever they we interested in. This was the case because all men were not created equal in the eyes of the wealthy white make, obviously I am generalizing, women and African Americans had a very difficult time even asking for the right to vote in the so-called free country. This being said true equality has never been mastered by the US Government, or any other governing body for that matter. The US today is still torn over the right to marry whomever you chose. This should be a no brainer in a country that prides itself on values of freedom and equality. Throughout the history of the United States government, I believe that equality has taken strides to encompass more and more people. I believe that equality is progress, and in this case it is progressing much further than freedom has. Most recently in this last decade or so since 9/11, freedoms have been stripped from civilians in order to promote safety. Under amendments such as the Patriot Act, the Executive branch has taken certain privacy freedoms from the citizens, informing us that the reason is to protect the Land of the Free. Quite a double standard when it comes to freedom and a governing body. If the citizens were to have every freedom that they so chose, without moral consideration, than laws would not be abided and the local or National governments would not have the freedom to enforce such laws that keep society running smoothly.

The Schenck Ruling by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party in the United States. During World War I, he was arrested for creating and distributing pamphlets that urged men to assert your rights and resist being drafted to fight in the war. Schenck was charged with attempting to obstruct recruitment efforts and the draft. He was charged and convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 that stated that people could not say, print, or publish anything against the government during times of war. He appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the law violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes The former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He served between 1902 and 1932.  Holmes passed the bar in 1877 and started working in the field as a lawyer at a private practice.  He also contributed editorial work to the American Law Review for three years, where he subsequently lectured at Harvard and published a collection of his essays called The Common Law.  Holmes was known as the Great Dissenter at the U.S. Supreme Court due to his opposing arguments with his colleagues. Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 Following is the pertinent section of the Espionage Act of 1917 that was used to prosecute Schenck: Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports of false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military..., shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty..., or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled unanimously against Schenck. It argued that, even though he had the right to free speech under the First Amendment during peacetime, this right to free speech was curtailed during the war if they presented a clear and present danger to the United States. It is in this decision that Holmes made his famous statement about free speech: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Significance of Schenck v. the United States This had a huge significance at the time. It seriously lessened the strength of the First Amendment during times of war by removing its protections of the freedom of speech when that speech could incite a criminal action (like dodging the draft). The Clear and Present Danger rule lasted until 1969. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, this test was replaced with the Imminent Lawless Action test. Excerpt from Schencks Pamphlet: Assert Your Rights In exempting clergymen and members of the Society of Friends (popularly called Quakers) from active military service the examination boards have discriminated against you. In lending tacit or silent consent to the conscription law, in neglecting to assert your rights, you are (whether knowingly or not) helping to condone and support a most infamous and insidious conspiracy to abridge and destroy the sacred and cherished rights of a free people. You are a citizen: not a subject! You delegate your power to the officers of the law to be used for your good and welfare, not against you.