How to Promote Service Users Rights and Responsibilities Essay Example for Free

How to Promote Service Users Rights and Responsibilities Essay Responsibilities In care settings the term quality practice is used to describe the promotion of service users` rights, which are essentially the same rights that are afforded to everyone else, such as the right to marry and freedom of expression; Care workers must actively promote the rights of service users in order to maintain quality practice. One of the toughest things is to balance out rights and responsibilities. It means taking ownership not only of your stuff, but also keeping an eye out for the other people as well. For example, being responsible around the Queensland for the service users may mean cleaning up after your mess and taking care of your belongings, but it also means having consideration for others, keeping the group areas of Queensland in reasonable condition, etc. The responsibility extends beyond yourself, but to others in your environment as well. The service users are normally taught about rights early on as well. Rights are what service users are or should be entitled like confidentiality is their right. Service users are entitled to make everyday choices, such as what food they wish to eat, what time they go to bed and get up, and what activities they wish to join. Encouraging service users to make choices is all about promoting independence, which at times may involve some level of risk (such as if service users want to go out shopping etc). It would be the care workers responsibility to assess (in collaboration with the service user) whether the amount of risk attached to certain activities is acceptable or not. Service users have the right to take risks, but the careers involved have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the service user. This is how in situations rights and responsibilities in Queensland are balanced: If there are seven disable service users, and they all need a wheelchair for going out, and sometimes Queensland have a day out, now there is tension arisen here as not all of the disable service users would be allowed to go spend their day out, the solution for this problem would be that some of he disable service users have to stay behind and go the next day, and it would be care worker. To make choices In decision-making, Choice of activities and events in daily life in relation to the Services received. This standard is intended to ensure the service provider implements Policies and practices that: †¢ provide opportunities for service users to make informed decisions and choices on a day-to-day basis according to their individual Needs †¢ incorporate flexible service delivery options, which reflect the ever-changing Needs and choices of service users. †¢ Aim at a balance between the principles of duty of care and least Restrictive alternatives that don’t unduly limit the ability of service Users to make decisions or take responsibility for their actions †¢ facilitate access to other support required by service users to adequately represent their needs, views, interests, choice and right. To confidentiality This standard is intended to ensure the service provider implements policies and practices that: †¢ comply with the privacy principles contained within relevant legislation †¢ ensure that service users are treated with dignity and respect in all aspects of their lives †¢ maintain the confidentiality of all personal information relating to service users. To protect Right to protect quality care in care setting which involves in providing protection. This helps to apply protection of: Service users, e.g. they need to keep them save. Service user’s property e.g. by preventing theft. Care workers, e.g. by keeping them and their property in safe hands. Owners and managers of health, social care and early year’s settings are responsible for making sure that those within their care are protected from harm. This means that many care settings have installed security pads on all entrances and exists. To gain access to the care settings either a confidential number must be keyed in or the door bell has to be used to summon help. In this way no unwanted visitors can access the building. Protection also means that making sure that service users are not abused. Service users are often unable to protect themselves and are at the mercy of those who care for them. It would be quite easy for a care worker to become angry or frustrated with a service user, particularly if they had a lot to do and the service user was displayed challenging behaviour.

The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil The Problem of Evil Does such problem contradict the existence of God? Why does our world contain so much evil? Why does it contain any evil at all? These questions and many others, particularly the presence of evil, reflects the most persistent argument raised against theism. The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. The problem simply stems from basic beliefs or assumptions pertaining to the attributes of God: God is perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent. From this, such a God should want to prevent evil, yet much evil exists. There have been many proposed solutions to problem of evil, one being the free will defense/argument. According to this argument, God must allow His creatures to do evil sometimes in order to promote free will. So even if God wants to prevent evil, he cannot because free will is important. The free will defense successfully solves the problem. Some critics believe that this argument fails due to the fact that God could give us f ree will and still stop people from doing evil. But if that were the case, people would not really have free will; they would know they could not freely do anything they wanted. In this paper I will further explain the problem of evil and examine the concept of the free will argument. Furthermore, I will present J. L. Mackies argument regarding the issue, while exploring Alvin Plantingas defense. Despite Plantingas success and acceptance, his free will defense still presents a conflict between reasoning and the characteristics of God. The problem of evil arises because the concept of God seems to entail that there should be no evil in the world. The existence of evil seems to indicate that God is not preventing this evil. If such notion were true, why would not God step in to intervene? Many philosophers, particularly J.L. Mackie, details the problem of evil as a simple case of logical inconsistency, which arises from the attributes of God all being true at the same time. The religious believers assume that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, yet evil exist. Simply stated or broken down, the problem of evil claims that the following prepositions cannot be held consistently together: 1. God is omnipotent (all powerful) 2. God is omniscient (all knowing) 3. God is omnibenevolent (all good) 4. Evil exists If God has these features, then it follows that God can and should want to prevent evil. As Mackie states, â€Å"Good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good things always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows that a good, omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good, omnipotent thing exists, and the evil exists, are incompatible (174).† For sake of clarity, I will define the terms â€Å"good† and â€Å"evil†, as they will be used throughout this paper. Good is interpreted as anything in harmony with Gods character, will, and goal, whereas evil is any state or condition that is contrary to His character, will, and goal. Speaking in terms of evil, I will further examine two types of evil, as one will be introduced later on in the paper. Moral evil is evil that results from an act, or failure to act, by man. For instance, murder is an evil brought about by man and therefore it is a moral evil. On the contrary, natural evil arises through no fault by man. He has no control over natural evil and is completely powerless to prevent its occurrences. Examples of natural evils are sufferings caused by diseases or natural phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis. The problem of evil can be distinguished between two types of philosophical aspects or challenges to faith in God: the evidential challenge and the logical challenge. The evidential challenge (also known as the inductive argument) seeks to show that the existence of evil counts against the probability of the truth of theism (defined as the belief in at least one deity). Philosophy William L. Rowe illustrates this challenge as such: 1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 3. Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being (Rowe, 201) In these statements, Rowe suggests the inductive, probabilistic view of the evil argument justifies atheism (defined as either a rejection of theism or a position that deities do not exist). Evidential arguments claim that there is no good reason for Gods permission of evil. On the other hand, there is the logical challenge to belief in God, which says that it is both impossible and irrational to believe in the existence of a good, powerful God with the existence of evil in the world. A sample logical challenge would in the following form: 1. A good God would destroy evil. 2. An all-powerful God would destroy evil. 3. Evil is not destroyed. 4. Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God. The logical challenge attempts to demonstrate that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct. In his argument from evil, David Hume inquires about the existence of God, stating that the assumed God would not possibly allow evil to exist. He asks, â€Å"Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil (150)?† Being that there is more evil than good in the world, it is difficult to see how one can reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of an all-powerful, omnibenevolent God. So it seems that either God does not exist, or His characteristics are very different from what we think. It seems that either choice contradicts the traditional belief in God. However, the conclusion that were wrong about God follows only if God has no good reason for allowing evil. Perhaps if one can explain Gods reason for allo wing evil, then the belief in God may still be rational. There are many possible replies and solutions to the problem of evil, but I will only limit focus to one particular argument. The free will defense illustrates that God allows evil for the sake of human free will. Moreover, evil occurs because God does not want to compromise this free will be preventing evil. Speaking in terms of free will, what does it mean to necessarily be free or possess free will? As used in this paper, free will is identical to freedom of choice, or the ability to do or not to do something. The concept implies that an omnipotent God does not assert its power to intervene in choice. Gods creation of beings with considerable free will is something like the greatest gift that can be given, or in another sense, the greater good. He could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating the greater good of having created beings with free will. The argument simply says that God is not responsible for the evil that takes place, but rather, beings are at fault; at some point in life, a being will be faced with a situation that requires moral choice and the ability to act freely, and they may possibly choose evil (Cain). The argument gives the impression that God knows that evil occurs, God does not want evil to occur, and God has the ability to prevent evil, but evil still exists because God wants us to have free will. In Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie argues that the traditional conceived God cannot possibly exist with so much evil and suffering in the world. Thus, the problem of evil leads to a contradiction in at least one, if not all, of the attributes of God (that being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent). In his essay, Mackie examines what he calls â€Å"so-called† solutions to the problem: evil being a necessary counterpart to good, the universe being better off with some evil, evil acting as a means to good, and evil being the result of human free will. For objective purposes of consistency, I will only touch basis on Mackies response to evil being the direct result of freedom. For Mackie, the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of a Christian God. He maintains the idea that God granted free will, but then asks, â€Å"If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could He not h ave made men such that they always freely choose the good (Mackie, 178)?† Being all powerful, God could have created a world with both free will and no signs of evil. In other words, God could have created a world where man had the ability to choose between two actions (good or bad), but from his omnipotence, He would always see it that man choose what was right. It is obvious that such a world was not created, so what does this say in terms of Gods power? According to Mackie, Gods inability to offer this possibility is a rational contradiction and limits not only his power, but his goodness as well. Plantinga, in his response against Mackie, suggests that atheologicans (specifically Mackie) are wrong to believe that evil and God are incompatible. He argues that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free beings that never chose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that even an omnibenevolent God would want to create a world that contains evil, only if such would bring moral goodness. God uses evil as a vehicle for bringing about the greater good. In efforts to refute the logical problem of evil, Plantinga tries to show that Mackies argument is not contradictory. In order to do so, he finds a statement that could make the claim a reasonable one and makes an addition of a necessarily true proposition to Mackies. He says that â€Å"The heart of the Free Will Defense is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil (Plantinga, 190-191).† It is not to be taken in any way that Plantinga declares his proposition is true, but rather logically sound. The free will defense, in my opinion, is a partial success. Plantingas argument is a valid justification for Gods permission of evil, but he seems to speak only in terms of one nature of evil. Yes, the evil that exists around us is a consequence of the abuse of our freedom. Not all natures of evil, however, can be explained in this way. There is much evil that is not inflicted by man. Natural evils (as described earlier in the paper) or disasters, for instance, cause great destruction, but there is nothing that man could have done to prevent them. So if the blame does not fall on man, who can we hold accountable for such occurrences? Would it be safe and logical to say that God, being the Creator of all things (nature in particular), is to blame? Of course for Plantinga he would rely on Augustines perspective to say that these particular evils are a result on moral evil, relating the incidents of Adam and Eve and the concept of original sin. This response would probably be the safe way out, but again it does not necessarily pose a solution to the problem of natural evils. Not everyone hold the same beliefs or interpretations of Adam, Eve, and the forbidding fruit scenario. And at this rate of thinking, his argument would only hold strong for the theist himself. On another note, I believe that it is reasonable to say that it is better that the world contain beings with significant freedom than that it contains only automata. Evil can be seen as an instrument of God to correct, purify, and instruct (as a parent punishes his/her child). God is justified in permitting evil and suffering in terms of promoting character development; it seems that His goal would be to bring man to a point spiritual well-being and maturity. It is deemed necessary that man go through struggles in order to gain strength, a means of soul promoting, or to be conscious of certain emotions. For instance, in order for a person to know â€Å"hot†, they must inevitably know â€Å"cold†. Without being aware of the one, chances are you would not know how to distinguish between the two. In this case, in order for a person to possess happiness or feel sorrow, they must have been faced with a situation that evokes such feelings or emotions. Ultimately, perhaps God allows evil and suffering so that in the end, man will be born again and accept Gods grace and live by His word. In addition to this thought, a world without evil may not be a feasible world for those who possess free will. Everyone would always freely choose to do good acts because God would constitute everyone to do so. But if no one can choose otherwise, then no ability to choose really exists. Therefore, free will does not exist. When it comes to the problem of evil and Gods existence, there are many questions and concerns that come to mind. Firstly, it is written in the Book of Genesis that God created man in His image. But what exactly is Gods nature? Earlier in the paper, it was established that God, particularly the Christian God, is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all good. I take this as saying that God acts as an accomplice to evil because He knows what will happen before the action is done, and yet he does nothing to get involved. He is all powerful because â€Å"through Christ all things are possible†, or at least all things logically possible. He is also all good meaning He cannot sin nor do evil. Taking this into deliberation, man (being created in His image) has the ability to do wrong and create evil. Thus, we are not â€Å"all-good†. So does this fact alone contradict Gods omnibenevolence? Secondly, God granted free will, but has no means of intervening or preventing the consequenc es; if this was false, then evil would not exist. Does this inability take away from His omnipotence? In a sense, I think of it as a limitation on his power because He created something that He has no control over or at least it seems that He does not. Thirdly, it is argued that God cannot actualize a world with free will and no presence of evil. If this is true, then what do you consider heaven? Heaven is supposed to be a â€Å"perfect† world. I am sure that there is free will and absolutely no evil and suffering. Why could not have God create the physical world (in which we live) as such? In conclusion, the problem of evil exists because man believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator. Many philosophers, such as Mackie, argue that if one abolishes God himself, or at least some of His attributes, then evil needs no explanation. In response, some philosophers offer justifications for God permitting evil. The most credible of these is the free will defense, which states that there are no contradictions in Gods attributes; He is capable of destroying evil, but not at the expense of taking away free will. In my paper, I have examined the problem of evil and the concept of the free will argument, using Mackie and Plantingas arguments on the subject. I have given reason to both accept and reject the notion that it can be logically established that the existence of both evil and God are not incompatible. Perhaps no one will really understand Gods reason for allowing some things to happen. More so, there is a possibility that such knowledge is beyond our means of reasoning at present. Bibliography Cain, James. Free Will and the Problem of Evil. Religious Studies: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion (2004): 437-456. Gale, Richard M. Freedom and the Free Will Defense. Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Philosophy (1990): 397-42. Gillett, Grant. The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. Journal of Applied Philosophy (2007): 435-438. Hume, David. The Argument from Evil. Pojman, Louis P. and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2008. 147-152. Mackie, J. L. Evil and Omnipotence. Pojman, Louis P. and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2008. 173-180. Plantinga, Alvin. The Free Will Defense. Pojman, Louis P. and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2008. 181-199. Schellenberg, J. L. The Atheists Free Will Offence. Internal Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2004): 1-15.

The Eight Principles Of Quality Management Principles Management Essay

The Eight Principles Of Quality Management Principles Management Essay This document introduces the eight quality management principles on which the quality management system standards of the ISO 9000:2000 and ISO 9000:2008 series are based. These principles can be used by senior management as a framework to guide their organizations towards improved performance. The principles are derived from the collective experience and knowledge of the international experts who participate in ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 176, Quality management and quality assurance, which is responsible for developing and maintaining the ISO 9000 standards. The eight quality management principles are defined in ISO 9000:2005, Quality management systems Fundamentals and vocabulary, and in ISO 9004:2000, Quality management systems Guidelines for performance improvements. This document gives the standardized descriptions of the principles as they appear in ISO 9000:2005 and ISO 9004:2000. In addition, it provides examples of the benefits derived from their use and of actions that managers typically take in applying the principles to improve their organizations performance. Principle 1: Customer focus Principle 2: Leadership Principle 3: Involvement of people Principle 4: Process approach Principle 5: System approach to management Principle 6: Continual improvement Principle 7: Factual approach to decision making Principle 8: Mutually beneficial supplier relationships The next step Principle 1: Customer focus Organizations depend on their customers and therefore should understand current and future customer needs, should meet customer requirements and strive to exceed customer expectations. Key benefits: Increased revenue and market share obtained through flexible and fast responses to market opportunities. Increased effectiveness in the use of the organizations resources to enhance customer satisfaction. Improved customer loyalty leading to repeat business. Applying the principle of customer focus typically leads to: Researching and understanding customer needs and expectations. Ensuring that the objectives of the organization are linked to customer needs and expectations. Communicating customer needs and expectations throughout the organization. Measuring customer satisfaction and acting on the results. Systematically managing customer relationships. Ensuring a balanced approach between satisfying customers and other interested parties (such as owners, employees, suppliers, financiers, local communities and society as a whole). Principle 2: Leadership Leaders establish unity of purpose and direction of the organization. They should create and maintain the internal environment in which people can become fully involved in achieving the organizations objectives. Key benefits: People will understand and be motivated towards the organizations goals and objectives. Activities are evaluated, aligned and implemented in a unified way. Miscommunication between levels of an organization will be minimized. Applying the principle of leadership typically leads to: Considering the needs of all interested parties including customers, owners, employees, suppliers, financiers, local communities and society as a whole. Establishing a clear vision of the organizations future. Setting challenging goals and targets. Creating and sustaining shared values, fairness and ethical role models at all levels of the organization. Establishing trust and eliminating fear. Providing people with the required resources, training and freedom to act with responsibility and accountability. Inspiring, encouraging and recognizing peoples contributions. Principle 3: Involvement of people People at all levels are the essence of an organization and their full involvement enables their abilities to be used for the organizations benefit. Key benefits: Motivated, committed and involved people within the organization. Innovation and creativity in furthering the organizations objectives. People being accountable for their own performance. People eager to participate in and contribute to continual improvement. Applying the principle of involvement of people typically leads to: People understanding the importance of their contribution and role in the organization. People identifying constraints to their performance. People accepting ownership of problems and their responsibility for solving them. People evaluating their performance against their personal goals and objectives. People actively seeking opportunities to enhance their competence, knowledge and experience. People freely sharing knowledge and experience. People openly discussing problems and issues. - Principle 4: Process approach A desired result is achieved more efficiently when activities and related resources are managed as a process. Key benefits: Lower costs and shorter cycle times through effective use of resources. Improved, consistent and predictable results. Focused and prioritized improvement opportunities. Applying the principle of process approach typically leads to: Systematically defining the activities necessary to obtain a desired result. Establishing clear responsibility and accountability for managing key activities. Analysing and measuring of the capability of key activities. Identifying the interfaces of key activities within and between the functions of the organization. Focusing on the factors such as resources, methods, and materials that will improve key activities of the organization. Evaluating risks, consequences and impacts of activities on customers, suppliers and other interested parties. Principle 5: System approach to management Identifying, understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the organizations effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its objectives. Key benefits: Integration and alignment of the processes that will best achieve the desired results. Ability to focus effort on the key processes. Providing confidence to interested parties as to the consistency, effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. Applying the principle of system approach to management typically leads to: Structuring a system to achieve the organizations objectives in the most effective and efficient way. Understanding the interdependencies between the processes of the system. Structured approaches that harmonize and integrate processes. Providing a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities necessary for achieving common objectives and thereby reducing cross-functional barriers. Understanding organizational capabilities and establishing resource constraints prior to action. Targeting and defining how specific activities within a system should operate. Continually improving the system through measurement and evaluation. Principle 6: Continual improvement Continual improvement of the organizations overall performance should be a permanent objective of the organization. Key benefits: Performance advantage through improved organizational capabilities. Alignment of improvement activities at all levels to an organizations strategic intent. Flexibility to react quickly to opportunities. Applying the principle of continual improvement typically leads to: Employing a consistent organization-wide approach to continual improvement of the organizations performance. Providing people with training in the methods and tools of continual improvement. Making continual improvement of products, processes and systems an objective for every individual in the organization. Establishing goals to guide, and measures to track, continual improvement. Recognizing and acknowledging improvements - Principle 7: Factual approach to decision making Effective decisions are based on the analysis of data and information Key benefits: Informed decisions. An increased ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of past decisions through reference to factual records. Increased ability to review, challenge and change opinions and decisions. Applying the principle of factual approach to decision making typically leads to: Ensuring that data and information are sufficiently accurate and reliable. Making data accessible to those who need it. Analysing data and information using valid methods. Making decisions and taking action based on factual analysis, balanced with experience and intuition. Principle 8: Mutually beneficial supplier relationships An organization and its suppliers are interdependent and a mutually beneficial relationship enhances the ability of both to create value Key benefits: Increased ability to create value for both parties. Flexibility and speed of joint responses to changing market or customer needs and expectations. Optimization of costs and resources. Applying the principles of mutually beneficial supplier relationships typically leads to: Establishing relationships that balance short-term gains with long-term considerations. Pooling of expertise and resources with partners. Identifying and selecting key suppliers. Clear and open communication. Sharing information and future plans. Establishing joint development and improvement activities. Inspiring, encouraging and recognizing improvements and achievements by suppliers. - ISO 9000 is a family of standards for quality management systems. ISO 9000 is maintained by ISO, the International Organization for Standardization and is administered by accreditation and certification bodies. The rules are updated, as the requirements motivate changes over time. Some of the requirements in ISO 9001:2008 (which is one of the standards in the ISO 9000 family) include a set of procedures that cover all key processes in the business; monitoring processes to ensure they are effective; keeping adequate records; checking output for defects, with appropriate and corrective action where necessary; regularly reviewing individual processes and the quality system itself for effectiveness; and facilitating continual improvement A company or organization that has been independently audited and certified to be in conformance with ISO 9001 may publicly state that it is ISO 9001 certified or ISO 9001 registered. Certification to an ISO 9001 standard does not guarantee any quality of end products and services; rather, it certifies that formalized business processes are being applied. Although the standards originated in manufacturing, they are now employed across several types of organizations. A product, in ISO vocabulary, can mean a physical object, services, or software. Contents [hide] 1 Contents of ISO 9001 1.1 Summary of ISO 9001:2008 1.2 1.0 Scope 1.3 2.0 Normative reference 1.4 3.0 Terms and definitions 1.5 4.0 Quality management system 1.6 5.0 Management responsibility 1.6.1 5.1 Management commitment 1.7 6.0 Resource management 1.8 7.0 Product realization 1.9 8.0 Measurement, analysis and improvement 1.9.1 8.5 Improvement 1.9.1.1 8.5.1 Continual improvement 1.10 1987 version 1.11 1994 version 1.12 2000 version 1.13 Certification 2 Auditing 3 Industry-specific interpretations 4 Effectiveness 4.1 Advantages 4.2 Problems 4.3 Summary 5 See also

Ural Mountains :: Informative Essays

The Ural Mountains are a rugged spine across Russia, running 1,300 miles from the fringe of the Arctic in the North, to the bend of the Ural River in the South. Traditionally they form a boundary between Europe and Asia. The north- south course of the Urals is relatively narrow, varying from about 20 to 90 miles in width, but it cuts across the vast latitude landscape regions of the Eurasian landmass, from Arctic waste to semidesert; the Urals also are part of the Ural economic region, a highly developed industrial complex closely tied to the mineral-rich Siberian region, and are the home of people with roots reaching deep into history. Physical Features The Urals divide into five sections. The northernmost Polar Urals extend some 240 miles from Mount Konstantinov Kamen in the north-east to the Khulga River the southeast; most mountains rise to 3300-3600 feet above sea level, although the highest peak, Mount Payer reaches 4829 ft. The next stretch, the Nether-Polar Urals, extends for more than 140 miles south to the Shchugor River. This section contains the highest peaks of the entire range, including Mount Narodnaya which reaches 6217 ft. and Mount Karpinsk Which is 6161 ft. These first two sections are typically Alpine and are Strewn with Glaciers and are heavily marked with permafrost. Farther south come the Northern Urals, which stretch for more than 340 miles to the Usa River in the south; most mountains top 3300 feet, and the highest peak, Mount Telpos-Iz, rises 5305 ft. Many of the summits are flattened, the remnants of the ancient Peneplains uplifted by geographically tectonic movements. In the north, intensive weathering has resulted in vast "seas of stone" on mountain slopes and summits. The lower Central Urals extend more than 200 miles to the Ufa river, rarely exceeding 1600 ft., althought the highest peak Mount SrednyBascy, rises to 3261 ft. The summits are smooth, with isolated residual outcrops. The last portion, the Southern Urals, extends some 340 miles to the westward bend of the Ural River and consists of several parallel ridges rising to 3900 ft. and culminating in Mount Yamantau, 580 ft.; the section terminates in the wide uplands of the Mugadozer h ills. The People Human habitation of the Urals dates to the distant past, The Nenetes are Sanoyed people of the Pay-Khoyregion, and their language belongs to the Samoyedic group of languages, which is widespread throughout northern Siberia. The most numerous indigenous groups the Bashkir, long settled in the southern Urals speak a tongue relater to the Turkic group. The Russian population is the largest group of people and is concentrated primarily in the central and

Literary Theory And African Am :: essays research papers

â€Å"Race is defined as one group of the populations constituting humanity.† (Coon 62)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Since the 1970’s, the conclusion has been stated that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. The notion of ‘race’ is so emotionally charged that objective discussion of its significance in relation to social problems is extremely difficult. There are three theories that have been very significant in re-defining the term â€Å"race† throughout their composition. This essay attempts to define the current North American concept of â€Å"race† among the African American culture and other racial notions that have been created throughout the configuration of the Post-Modernist, Feminist and Post-Colonial theories.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Post-Modernism is a complicated term, one that has only emerged as an area of study since the mid-1980’s. Post-Modernism, by it’s very nature, is virtually impossible to come up with one single definition, though, Post-Modernism in it’s totality is the movement in arts, music, literature and drama which rejected the past Victorian ideas of â€Å"modern†. The movement contributed to the realization that art has no single meaning and overturned the problems with culture and language boundaries that cut away at art’s meaning, worth and truth. Today, the state of mind of the human world is called Post-Modernism, since it is a multi-cultural era. Racial Post-Modernism calls attention to those understandings that are shared across the boundaries of class, gender and race. To take racism seriously, one must consider the plight of the underclass people of color, a vast majority of whom is black. For African Americans Post-Modern conditio ns have been and are characterized by continued displacement and despondency. There is increasing class division and differentiation, creating a significant black middle-class concerned with racism to the degree that is poses constraints on upward social mobility. However, this is also building a vast and growing black underclass that embodies a kind of walking rejection that manifests pervasive drug addiction, alcohol abuse, homicide and suicide. (Biddiss 17). Now, because of de-industrialization, we also have a devastated black industrial working class. I am referring to a sentiment of tremendous hopelessness. Very few African American intellectuals have talked, or written, about Post-Modernism. In J.F. Loytard’s book â€Å"the Post-Modern Condition†, he confronts the lack of recognition of black presence that much Post-Modernist theory reinscribes and the resistance on the part of most black people to hearing about real connections between Post-Modernism and black e xperience.

What mistake did Ivan Ilych made his life chaffy? Attest by using direct quotes from the novel?

From Chapter II, â€Å"†¦he married because his social circle approved of the match. He was swayed by both these considerations: †¦ it was considered the right thing by the most highly placed of his associates†¦Ã¢â‚¬ [1]   He lived to indulge others and usually this is a perfect way to flop.â€Å"†¦ he considered his duty to be what was so considered by those in authority†¦ he attracted to people of high station†¦, assimilating their ways and views of life and establishing friendly relations with them†¦Ã¢â‚¬ 2   He conformed the benchmark and only thrived to become a paragon pawn of those in high pedestal. He considered that the best authority is the achievers.â€Å"†¦when obliged to be at home he tried to safeguard his position by the presence of outsiders†¦. The whole interest of his life now centered in the official world†¦ and continued to flow as he considered it should do — pleasantly and properly.† 3   H e escaped goat from his nagging and irritable wife by being workaholic. He tried to evade from the problems instead of facing it courageously.He denied his spiritual life. According to Chapter XI, he was reluctant first of taking the communion but felt obliged when pleased by his wife. He lacked faith. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone but from the word of God. He is self-centered in a sense he followed the ontological good but not morally upright. He lost his dignity which is his morality.2. What are the implications of death to spiritual malnourished like Ivan and Kanji?Fear—for they are not ready; for they haven’t found the significance of their very existence. They feel that there is something missing that has to be found as acted by Ivan and Kanji. There very instinct told them so and this is their inner man. Man is physical, social, emotional and SPIRITUAL—which animals lack.3. What made Ivan/Kanji succored while still in malady and agon y?In The Death of Ivan Ilych,(a) â€Å"When the priest came and heard his confession, Ivan Ilych was softened and seemed to feel a relief from his doubts and consequently from his sufferings, and for a moment there came a ray of hope†¦Ã¢â‚¬ 4 (b) through love and compassion showed by his sick nurse and by looking at him and (c) through the caress of his son.In Ikiru, through kindness and plainness of Toyo, a young girl who works in Mr. Kanji Watanabe’s office; looking at her made him feel better. (Kurusawa, 1952)4. â€Å"Yes, it was not the right thing †¦but that’s no matter. It can be done. But what is the right thing?†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 5Forgiveness, acceptance and compassion. (The Death of Ivan Ilych) Simple way of living and doing things superficial as it may seem but has a worthwhile impact to others which is charity. (Ikiru) 5. What are the moral lessons of the novel/film?*   Success and happiness in life is not measured by career or material wealth as opined by many. Sometimes the most happiest and fulfilled person are the poor and uneducated portrayed by Gerasim and proven by Tolstoy.*   Learn to balance your self. It’s not about career. Spend some time in simple things yet worth remembering. Life is short so use your life to the fullest.*   Without God as a center of life, life is in vain.Notes1. Tolstoy, Lev Nekolayevich. 1886. Death of Ivan Ilych. Christian Classics Ethereal   Ã‚  Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/tolstoy/ivan.iii.html (accessed March 11, 2009)2. Tolstoy, Chapter II3. Tolstoy, Chapter II4. Tolstoy, Chapter XI5. Tolstoy, Chapter XII

Interconnectedness

In the rainforest ecosystem, everything is connected to one another. There is an interconnectedness existing in this ecosystem. To continue to function, the ecosystem depends on the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors. An ecosystem survives by a combination of energy flow and matter recycling. To understand the interconnectedness of the ecosystem, food webs and food chains could be observed. Each organism depends on each other to survive and maintain their populations essay writer website. In the food web, there are the producers and the consumers.The producers produce their food by the sun; they are autotrophs. This is one of the main ways energy is introduced into the ecosystem from the sun to the organisms. Herbivores depend on these producers for their food and energy. Carnivores depend on the herbivores for their food and energy, and omnivores depend on the producers and consumers for their food and energy. A dependency can be seen as the organisms rely on one an other for energy. Food webs do not only show the transferring of energy through the organisms, but it also shows the predator-prey relationships.This is important because this is one of the main ways a specie population is maintained. In the rainforest, there is a high biodiversity, so there is a large amount of organisms occupying the area. An example of this would be the jaguars prowling the area. They feed on preys such as tapirs and peccaries. Because of this, the number of peccaries and tapirs living in that area are kept to a certain balance. If the predators are lost, the populations of these preys would steadily increase causing there to be less plants in the area.Fewer resources could cause some organisms population, which depends on this source for food, to deplete. So if this keystone specie is lost, the whole ecosystem is affected. Not only is predation observed, but symbiotic relationships are also seen: mutualism, commensalism and parasitism. An example of mutualism wo uld be the lichen and fungus. The lichen is an alga that relies on the framework of the fungus to live on, and the fungus relies on the alga for food. These organisms are so dependent on one another; they cannot live without the other.The mistletoe is a parasitic plant that attaches itself unto trees and sends its roots into the wood, taking the nutrients from the trees. The trees can die because of the lost of resource. Termites living in the rainforest use the fallen branches from the trees to build homes. The tree does not benefit from this but the termites do; this shows commensalism. Plants rely on animals to spread their seeds and to continue their species existence. Competition can also be seen. When organisms die, nutrients and resources are given back into the environment. There is a continuous recycling of nutrients.Because of the interaction between animals and plants, nutrients can be obtained from the earth and the organism on the earth can obtain the nutrients. When an organism dies, its nutrients are given back to the earth where the organisms residing in this location uses it. This interaction could be seen in biogeochemical cycles. In biogeochemical cycles, the nutrients needed for an animal to survive moves through water, air, land and living organisms. An example would be the carbon cycle. When plants photosynthesize, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen.This oxygen is needed by animals to survive. Organisms also depend on abiotic factors in the rainforest ecosystem to survive. Water is an essential component needed. An average temperature of 20oC to 34oC must be maintained in order for the animals to survive. The warm air and usual rain makes the climate perfect for trees to grow and survive. Sunlight also plays a huge role in the survival of the animals in this area. So many things are interconnected in the rainforest; a delicate balance must be maintained. If any factor is affected, the ecosystem could collapse.