Research Application of How College Athletes Deal with Stress and Manage Time

Costa Del Sol essays

Costa Del Sol essays It is possible that the Neolithic revolution, the discovery of agriculture the passage of nomadic to sedentary peoples, reached Europe by way of Africa through what is known today as Andalusia. This historical center of influence, an east - west displacement, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic began with a revolution that introduced the usage of metals and the arrival of colonizers from the east. A confluence of fertile lands, of metallurgy and fishing activities took place in this westernmost area that the Tartars once inhabited. This mysterious civilization that lived in the southern Iberian peninsula since the bronze ages, established the first known monarchy in western Europe. The Tartars, an agricultural and cattle raising people, also worked the gold mines while their ships traded with Great Britain from the west and received the Phoenicians from the east. This marked the beginning of a complex geographical position between two oceans and two continents. Rome took up residence on these shores after realizing that this region could become the open door for a threat from Cartage. Roman legions appeared for the first time in the 3rd century BC. The exuberant province of "Btica" would become for the next seven centuries part of the great civilized world, contributing to the empire materials such as metals, wine, oil, wheat, philosophers, writers and the first two emperors born outside of the Italic peninsula.: Trajano and Adriano. Other peoples appeared from the north. From the shores of the Rin descended the Vandals in 411 AD. They settled in the valley of the Guadalquivir river and in northern Africa and for half a century united the shores of the two continents. Before being expelled by the Visigoths they had given a new name to the region of Europe: Vandalucà ­a. Since the arrival in 711 of Islam this region enjoyed wonderful times. The Caliphate of Crdoba during many years was the most sophistic...

Construction; Roof and Intermediate Floors Essay

Construction; Roof and Intermediate Floors - Essay Example The roof covering may be metal sheets, wooden shingles, tiles, slates or slab itself. In this type of roof, steel bars and concrete are used to form a roof. Before construction, the thickness of slab, beam and reinforcement needs to be determined based on the span and loading conditions. This type of roof best suits the construction of the intermediate floor. The balance and strength needed for the support of an entire floor is made easy with this flat roof. Since the roof in question has a wide span it cannot be constructed with rafters alone. The roof has to be constructed with a structure comprising of frames known as trusses. The following illustration shows the general structure of such a roof. Houses of now are a lot better insulated because they have doors, windows and roofs which fit tightly and keep the temperature controllable. The air inside the house is kept warm by means of various techniques of circulating the air. A distinction is made on the type of roof based on the temperature it can keep. When the air inside the house remains warm it is known as a hot roof and vice versa. A hot roof allows for the air cavities to freeze and refreeze the snow or ice and in the process taking on the heat. The circulation of air into and out of the building must be moderated by an appropriate structural design. To assure this the construction has been fitted with â€Å"Quilt roof insulation between the† Joists. The housing structure is equipped with 75x50 wall plate with 30x2.5x600c/c girth galvanized m/s wall anchors nailed to block walls @1000 c/c (between windows) with 150 deep strip of XPM filled over plate as plaster key. Heavy horizontal beams or steel lintels are pressed 225mm deep to support the structure and roof. To accommodate for adequate insulation 75 thick c/s screed topping is placed on a 12mm polystyrene slab. (Simon Ã…  ilih, Miroslav Premrov and Stojan Kravanja, Faculty of Civil

What are the principal barriers to secondary analysis of qualitative Essay

What are the principal barriers to secondary analysis of qualitative data Why should researchers pursue this approach - Essay Example This type of analysis can either be qualitative or quantitative, and aims at dealing with new study questions by investigating previously collected data. This discussion is focused on secondary analysis of qualitative data. There is no difference in definition to secondary analysis of data, except for the difference between qualitative and quantitative data involved. In the case of secondary analysis of qualitative data, the existing data use is qualitative rather than quantitative. Qualitative data is all about behaviour and attitudes which cannot be quantified. Quantitative data however, focuses on numerical data. Analysis involves large sets of data that are used to make predictions or generalizations3. Secondary analysis brings in a new body of knowledge. Mostly, secondary analyses have been carried out in cases where authors want to: Perform additional analysis to a subset of the original dataset, Perform additional analysis to the original dataset, Pursue distinct interests fro m the original analysis, Provide case material for teaching and methodological development, Apply a new conceptual focus or new perspective to the original research issues, and Describe the historical and contemporary attributes, and behaviour of groups, individuals, organizations or societies. Secondary analysis is also important in situations where the participants are difficult to access, especially in sensitive topics4. Secondary analysis for qualitative data focuses on qualitative research. An example could be, a research focusing on the attitudes of footballers towards the media. An analysis of these attitudes can be done on a primary level. A secondary analysis may have a different target, for example, it would say, the attitudes reveal the footballers’ real emotions, and use the primary data from the original research to prove the point. These secondary analyses to qualitative data have barriers and benefits. These are as discussed below. Barriers to Secondary Analysi s of Qualitative Data There is lack of familiarity with the data. When collecting primary data, the aim of the research guides the arrangement of such data, so that familiarity, with its structure and various features is not an issue. When conducting a secondary analysis however, a researcher has to take time finding out why certain qualitative data is coded as they are in the primary dataset. This means that the researcher will need a lot of time to decode the primary dataset, and in some cases, to understand the complexity of the dataset’s organization. If the qualitative dataset is found to be complex, it may discourage a secondary analysis. Complexity of a dataset and time taken to familiarize with specific variables in a qualitative dataset, are some of the barriers to such analyses5. Another barrier is the primary researchers’ legal and ethical obligation to keep such data confidential. Qualitative data may be characterised by the content of sensitive or private information. This is especially true about data obtained from interviews in which the interviewees entrust the primary researcher with sensitive or private information about them or their lives. The primary researcher has the obligation to protect the information, and maintain confidentiality as agreed upon before data collection. The main problem in secondary analysis is approaching such kind of researchers to analyse their data a second time. It could be an example of an ethical dilemma. The original researcher may want to share his or her data, but the confidential information that will be accessed by the secondary analysts may lead to a breach of contract between the primary resea

Qasr Al Hosn Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Qasr Al Hosn - Essay Example In attempt to preserve it, the building has undergone a number of structural changes, although it remains to show the original and indigenous architecture of the Emiratis, depicting how the past can live through the present.     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Despite its long-standing history and rich past, research has been limited on the preservation trance of Qasr Al Hosn. Generally, Qars Al Hosn has not been accorded the level of research that it deserves, resulting in limited attention for the iconic building. It is however clear that historic buildings are vulnerable, and Qasr Al Hosn as well deserves extra care and preservation if it is to last longer than it has. Consequently, this study explores and suggests a blueprint for the preservation Qasr Al Hosn as cultural monument in UAE. The study probes and discusses how the future identity of Qasr Al Hosn should be preserved, and how it will feed into the next generations (Hellyer and Ziolkowski 4). The Abu Dhabi’s story begins from the Qasr Al Hosn, a name that signifies its twin role: â€Å"Hosn† meaning fort, and â€Å"Qasra’ meaning castle. It is imperative to note Abu Dhabi was a region that was ruled by a tribe known as Bani Yas, who inhabited the oasis of Liwa. The Bani Yas tribe visited the island â€Å"Abu Dhabi’ for the purposes of collecting salt and fishing. The tribe did not inhabit the island because it lacked water. However, a wide area of drinking water was discovered in the island in 1760. Sheikh Dhiyab Al Nahyan later built a watchtower in the area to conserve the precious resource, when he discovered the significance of fresh water. This prompted influx of small settlement into the region. Later, the tower was expanded as the settlement in the region increased. It is significant to note the Sheikh Dhiyab Al Nahyan fortified the castle in the 18th century to protect from any form of invasion. This

The War Measures Act History Essay

The War Measures Act History Essay The October Crisis of 1970 and the invocation of the War Measures Act was one of the most significant events in the history of Canada. On the fifth of October, James Cross, the British Trade Commissioner, was kidnapped from his Montreal home by a group of young French Canadian terrorists, the Front de Libà ©ration du Quà ©bec or FLQ. The FLQ was a radical political group within the province of Quebec, intent on separating Quebec from Canada. Five days later, the Minister of Labour and the second in command of Quebecs provincial government, Pierre Laporte, was kidnapped from his front lawn by a different FLQ cell. The intent of the kidnappings was to exchange Cross and Laporte for the twenty-three FLQ political prisoners responsible for the bombings, hold-ups and deaths of six innocent people, as well other drastic forms of protest. There was tremendous support for the FLQ in Quebec, mainly by students and working class demonstrators. Many politicians, some members of the press, labour union leaders and other prominent members of society supported the FLQ, either openly or indirectly by agreeing with the views and demands of this organization. The Quebec government, lead by Premier Robert Bourassa, along with Pierre Elliot Trudeaus Federal Government, refused negotiations with this terrorist organization. Quebec requested federal aid. On the 15th of October 1970 the Federal Army was sent into the province. The following day, both governments brought forth the implementation of the War Measures Act; an act designed for war. On the succeeding day, the body of Pierre Laporte was found strangled, bringing the crisis to its apex. The unprecedented use of this act in a time of peace sparked enormous criticism and controversy. Both the Federal and Provincial governments argued for the justification of the act, while the opposition parties, scholars, historians, reporters and other political figures strongly criticized and argued against it. Whether the use of this act was just, or not, is a highly debatable subject. To fully assess its use, the events leading up to its employment and the effects it had on the Canadian public, as well as the opinions from both sides of the issue need to be taken into consideration. In the fall of 1970, there were numerous converging contributors, both national and international, to the tensions and turmoil experienced in the province of Quebec. The turmoil of the health care in Quebec elevated tensions. In 1966 the Medical Care Act was passed, which allowed each province to develop and implement its own form of Federally funded health care. The government in Quebec worked on the development of the Medical Insurance Act, which would implement this healthcare. However, revisions of this act were time consuming. Each month that the act went unenforced, the province of Quebec lost out on vast amounts of federal funds. Doctors and specialists concerned with the new system went on strike at the same time as the FLQ Crisis. The two events were not directly related but this event put more pressure on the Quebec government and heightened apprehensions within the province. 2 Another contributor to the setting of the crisis was the Parti Quà ©bà ©cois. This partys principle political stance was the separation of Quebec from Canada. The Parti Quà ©bà ©cois and the FLQ are often mistakenly regarded as connected organizations because of their paralleled ideologies. In actuality, the two groups were entirely distinct from one another. The FLQ perceived violence as the only conduit of achieving their demands, whereas the Parti Quà ©bà ©cois wanted to achieve its goal through peaceful means. They objected to federal intervention in matters pertaining to Quebec. The founder and leader Renà © Là ©vesque created this political party but was not an elected member of the National Assembly. Dr. Camille Laurin led the party, along with its seven members, in the National Assembly. French Canadians felt inadequately represented on a national platform. This new, inexperienced and highly unorganized Parti Quà ©bà ©cois led to far more chaos than benefit. Although non-violent, they were wary to object to the FLQ because they did not want to lose popularity among the student population of active protestors.3 On the 12th of October, the party added to the unrest by making the uniformed, public declaration in favor for the exchange of the political prisoners. The Parti Quà ©bà ©cois objected to Ontario Premier John Robarts declaration of opposition to FLQs separation through terrorism. This party turned the crisis into Quebec versus Ottawa, which is what exactly what the FLQ wanted.4 The Parti Quà ©bà ©cois had a staggering influence on the attitude of the Quebec public. The press and media were another major contributing factor to public attitudes at the time of crisis. Instead of promoting calm and order, the press raised tensions and aggression through the spreading of rumors, and through slanted reporting in favor of the Parti Quà ©bà ©cois. The press failed to consider at the time, that the Parti Quà ©bà ©cois declaration on the crisis may have inadvertently aided the FLQ, or that the Parti Quà ©bà ©cois might have acted opportunistically.5 At the point of the crisis in October in 1970, the FLQ had existed for 7 years. There had been 200 bombings in Quebec and numerous other acts of violence. The government knew they were capable of violence. The press hysterically covered the events, and newspapers screamed for drastic action. The provincial government of Quebec was under enormous pressure to act.6 Public attitude reflected that many citizens of Quebec felt that the federal government of Canada was in favor of its English speaking population. This attitude added frustration among the public, and the setting of turmoil and chaos was set for the crisis that occurred in October 1970. The separatist group Front de Libà ©ration du Quà ©bec was politically active from 1963 to 1973. Pierre Vallià ¨res and Charles Gagnon were key leads of the FLQ in October 1970. This was not one cohesive group, but rather a set of minor groups or cells, sharing a common view of the issues in Quebec. Many cells had their own agenda and goals separate from the whole of the body. The organization, like its philosophy, depended on the views of the members at any given time. The FLQs cells were constantly breaking up and reforming because of police raids, arrests, and convictions in court, and also because of differences among members.7 Prior to the 1970s, the FLQ manifesto primarily called for separation. In 1970, at the beginning of the crisis, the demand for a workers state was added to their manifesto. Part of the manifesto was written in colloquial French or in French English slang, intentionally to distance the FLQ from the intellectuals or bourgeoisie and align themselves with t he working class.8 College and university students actively participated and demonstrated for the cause. Many sympathetically aligned with the FLQ and did not object to the acts being committed. Many helped to shelter wanted FLQ members, and many stayed silent, refraining from objection to the FLQ and its cause. There was no official list of members. This group of like-minded individuals held varying levels of dedication. To become a member one must commit a crime for the cause. They thought their actions were giving Quebec its freedom. 1968 a long term strategy document entitled Revolutionary Strategy and the Role of the Avant-Garde outlined plans of the robberies and violence, bombings and kidnappings thought to be necessary to bring about the revolution that they sought after.9 It also outlined plans for kidnappings and assassinations. This accumulated group of revolutionary terrorists felt that violence was the only means to achieve their goals. On the 5th of October 1970, two members of the FLQ Liberation cell kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross, from his home, leaving a ransom note of demands. The demands included the publishing of the Front de Libà ©ration du Quà ©bec manifesto, the release of the twenty three convicted and imprisoned members of the FLQ, $500,000 in gold, the rehiring of Les Gars de Lapalme, as well as other demands. The members of the FLQ cell that kidnapped Cross were prepared and determined to achieve their demands. Members of the cell stated, when we decided to kidnap the diplomat Cross, we weighed all the possibilities, including the sacrifice of our own lives for a cause we believed to be just. If the repressive police forces should discover us and attempt to intervene before the release of the British diplomat Cross, be sure that we will sell our lives dearly and that Mr. Cross would immediately be liquidated. We have enough dynamite in our possession to feel perfectly secure.10 The context of the manifesto and crisis need to be taken into consideration. Turmoil, unrest and revolution were actively occurring in other parts of the world. The students of France had only a few years earlier, revolted in their own country. France had encouraged Quebecs wish for separation. The FLQ manifesto went through three transitions since 1963. This first manifesto called for social justice, focusing on separatism. The second version was shorter, omitting talk of violence. The third was published the day after Cross was kidnapped. This manifesto called workers to take back what was theirs: we are the workers of Quà ©bec and we will struggle on to the bitter end. Together with all the people, we want to replace this slave society with a free society, functioning by itself and for itself; a society open to the world.11 It was written with a shock esthetic to encourage public sympathy. The publication of the manifesto was one of the demands of the Liberation cell. Radio Canada agreed to a televised reading. The government did not condone, nor did it object to the reading. To object would heighten interest, curiosity and criticism towards the government. To exchange convicted terrorists for hostages is an extremely difficult choice for any government. There is no correct decision. Each situation suffers both pros and cons: to save the lives of two people by releasing convicted criminals or risk the lives of the two hostages. The FLQ directly addressed their demands to the Bourassa government who had to ultimately make the decision. The first option meant permitting terrorist activity to replace the courts and legislature of a democratic society, where social and political reform can come about by drastic means.12 The release of the jailed FLQ would surely invite further kidnappings. The Quebec minister of Justice, Jà ©rà ´me Choquette stated that No society can consent to have the decisions of its judicial and governmental institutional challenged or set aside by the blackmail of a minority, for that signifies the end of all social order.13 While Choquette announced the governments refusal to release the prisoners, a separate cell, called the Chà ©nier cell, immediately acted by kidnapping Pierre Laporte. The timing of this kidnapping made the FLQ appear to be a highly organized, incredibly swift moving group.14 They were already on their way to kidnap Laporte before the English translation of Choquettes statement was aired.15 To the government, this swiftness frightened them and caused them to question the strength of the Front de Libà ©ration du Quà ©bec. After the kidnapping of Laporte, Bourassas government met to discuss the decision. After a three-day period and much debate, the unanimous decision of non-negotiation was made. The justification behind the decision was that the FLQ demanded the release of political prisoners, but that was not what they were; they were convicted criminals. To accept the demands to release them would diminish the value of the Canadian justice system. A democratic society cannot accept blackmail as a legitimate argument in government proceedings, otherwise anarchy will replace rule of law. If the government had given in to the demands of the FLQ, this would only demonstrate the weapon that the terrorists possess, encouraging others to achieve their goals through the same means. This crisis occurred in a democratic country and the FLQ directly challenged Canadian democracy. A democratically elected government is a trustee charged with the task of preserving the rights and freedoms of the society that cho se to elect it and, accordingly, it has no mandate to cede its authority and responsibilities to terrorists.16 The government did, however, continue with attempts to negotiate with the FLQ in hopes that their stalling would allow time for authorities to find Cross and Laporte. The FLQ was stunned by the governments decision. The Parti Quà ©bà ©cois publically expressed opposition to the ruling and viewed the convicted criminals as political prisoners. On October fourteenth, Là ©vesque and sixteen other government officials and intellectuals signed a petition calling for the exchange. They did so to show opposition to the government; they sympathized with the FLQ. The Parti Quà ©bà ©cois failed to realize that the decision to release them would disparage the Canadian justice system. The next aspect of the October Crisis that must be discussed is the distinction between the calling in of the Canadian Army, and the implementation of the War Measures Act. Many fail to realize that the active army presence in Quebec did not depend on the implementation of the War Measures Act. On the 15th of October 1970, under the National Defense Act, the Quebec government requested federal assistance by calling the army into the province to aid their civil powers. Opposition parties agreed with this decision. Dr. Camille Laurin initially agreed with the decision, and then reversed his opinion hours later. When asked about the insertion of the army in Quebec, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau stated that, we have used certain elements of the army as peace officers so that the police forces would be free to accomplish their real duties and would not be obliged to spend their time protecting your friends from another kidnapping. I believe that it is more important to rid ourselve s of those who seek to impose their will on the government through a parallel power which resorts to kidnapping and extortion. 17 The army was successful, allowing the police to focus on their normal duties. Most of the population welcomed the army presence and the reassurance it brought, although, there were many who opposed. It must be stressed that the army could be called in without the use of the War Measures Act. The two are separate from one another. The War Measures Act was developed for war. It had been invoked during World War I and II, whereby the Federal government can use all powers it deems necessary to achieve its goal. Under this act, civil liberties and judicial rights are suspended. Censorship becomes active and suspicion and distrust are at extremes. The government is easily able to arrest and detain individuals perceived as a threat, without authorization or the right to a court hearing. The War Measures Act is based on unbridled authority, fear and the threat of violence.18 On the 16th of October, at four a.m. the Act was invoked declaring the FLQ an illegal organization and that membership would be considered a crime. Other issues happening around the world influenced the Canadian government and Cabinet Minsters. They believed individuals and groups of the FLQ were being financed and inspired by foreign political powers that do not share our notion of mans fundamental liberties.19 The fear of the unknown caused the two governments to act in such a drastic way. Trudeau may have proclaimed the War Measures Act, not because of the actual events, but rather, that he knew if the Federal government did not act decisively, their vision of Federalism would not persevere.20 The reason given for the proclamation was an apprehended insurrection, the evidence for which Canadians were to take on faith, and that Quebec had asked for the imposition of the act.21 Violence had progressively built since the formation of the FLQ and after the two kidnappings; government officials feared what would happen next. The assassination of John F. Kennedy had occurred only a few years prior. They were aware that the FLQ had a plan devised that included assassination, and they feared that it would be the next step. Although the FLQs strength and resources were unknown to the police or to the governments, there was considerable evidence of a build-up, that, it was thought, could lead to even greater violence that had already occurred.22 William Tetley, a minister of Bourassas cabinet believed there was sufficient reason for the government to invoke the act. Many in the cabinet quietly went along with the act, either unsure or too intimidated to speak out. Only Tommy Douglas of the New Democratic Party stood in the House each day, debating the government on its justifications for suspending civil liberties.23 Overnight twelve thousand five hundred armed troops flooded into Montreal in search of the FLQ kidnappers. Two hundred and forty two people were arrested, some in the middle of the night, and some violently. Among the arrested in Quebec, many were labour leaders, community activists and organizers and separatists of all types. These people were stripped of their rights, they could not inform their families, friends, or employers of their detainment or whereabouts. 24 Many viewed this as humiliating, and some citizens were verbally and physically abused by police.25 Homes were searched without warrants, virtually all civil rights were removed as an extreme effort to swiftly put an end to the crisis. The day after the war measures act was implemented; the strangled body of Pierre Laporte was discovered. The reason given for the proclamation was an apprehended insurrection, the evidence for which Canadians were to take on faith.26 Paul and Jacques Rose, Bernard Lortie and Francis Simmard were the four accused of the murder of Pierre Laporte. After serving his sentence, Simmard wrote a memoire discussing his views and the views of his cell on the crisis. He proceeded to explain the reasoning for his actions and why they chose to murder Laporte. The FLQ had never planned to kidnap Cross; they did not intend to make the issue an Anglo -French issue but rather wanted to gain political separation.27 His reasoning for partaking in the FLQ was that the issues represented by the group fully represented his situation. We werent looking for an outlet for our need to revolt, it wasnt some kind of personal assertion thing. We were trying to get a hold of our lives, our situation as worker, our poverty. For us, the words in the manifesto werent abstract theory. We were the manifesto.28 The poverty of the working class was the daily lives of its members. Simmard and the Roses had left the country to make some money. Upon their return, they learned that an FLQ cell had acted on its own to kidnap Cross.29 They felt that the provincial and federal governments were not taking the situation seriously.30 His cell decided to kidnap a person directly responsible for the situation and Laporte was an easy target. They considered the abduction of an American diplomat, but decided to go with Laporte because he was close to their location and they knew he was at his home. They actually called his house before going to kidnap him, to see if he was home.31 Simmards cell waited for the governments answer regarding the demands set after the kidnapping of Cross. When Choquette rejected their demands they immediately acted.32 To them the ruling class at the conference was smug and arrogant and annoyed that the FLQ was playing their game33 He felt they needed to take a more drastic stance against the government to show the seriousness that the FLQ represented. Our choices werent spontaneous, they werent individualistic. Our choices were part of the struggle for Quebec independence and social, economic and political power for the workers.34 The decision to partake in the FLQ was a means to take control of their situation and lives. In regards to the murder of Laporte, Simmard states that, we never intended to kill Pierre Laporte. If we had, we wouldnt have kidnapped him, we would have killed him. The immediate goal of the kidnapping was the release of Quebec political prisoners, the rehiring of the Lapalme workers who had been laid off and the will to get rid of a political authority that was not and would never be ours. We were sincere.35 After the government made the decision to combat the FLQ with the War Measures Act, Simmard and his cell felt they had no choice but to kill Laporte. We choseto kill him, it was no accident. 36 After the death of Laporte, government support grew tremendously. Even Quebec overwhelmingly supported the War Measures Act after Laportes death.37The anger from the murder caused many to lose support for the FLQ. Also, most were scared after to be aligned with the FLQ under the use of the Act. Members of the FLQ were not the only ones to criticize the governments decision to implement the War Measures Act. Many questioned whether or not Trudeau had ulterior motives for its implementation. The act was used Canada wide and was exploited in parts of the country. It was intended that anyone who supported the FLQ, Canada wide would be detained. However, there were reported cases in Vancouver, Ottawa, and Regina, of police using the Act as an excuse to rid the city of any undesirables (i.e. hippies, student activists, etc.). This exploitation of the act resulted in enormous criticism towards the government. 38 Prior to the decision of the implementation of the act, it was rumored that RCMP members informed cabinet ministers that the FLQ had weapons that were threatening to the safety of the public. The government later blamed RCMP for bad information when in reality it was a lack of proper political evaluation. It was a lack of coordination between intelligence groups and the governments.39 There were major errors in the implementation of the War Measures Act. The choice of those to be arrested under the Act should have been more carefully planned and decided. They should have been allowed the right to an attorney and the public should have been more informed. However, it was difficultà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦for the government to inform the public without letting the FLQ know their strategy.40 There was also much criticism towards Trudeau directly for implementing the Measure as a means to discourage or set back the separatist movement. The October Crisis resulted from the combined effect of the two kidnappings and the federal governments anger at seeing the independence movement constantly gain momentum.41 Conversely most English Canadians supported the WMA.42 In the summer of 1970, there were bombings in Montreal, FLQ calls for revolutionary action, rumors of weapon and dynamite theft, and strikes. The Bourassa government was showed that they were inadequate to lead the province in dealing with its issues. When Cross was kidnapped, Trudeau was shocked. He reacted strongly and vowed that the government would not give in to terrorists. Trudeau said if we had agreed, as the FLQ demandedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦they would have no reason to hesitate to murder, rob and bomb againà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦all their pals would have to do is kidnap someone else to have them released from prison- and on and on indefinitely.43 Then Laporte was kidnapped and the stakes grew. The government in Ottawa began to fear the FLQ was more organized than initially thought. Feared that if not stopped it could lead to untold violence. 44 Bourassa and Justice Minister Jerome Choquette appeared confused as at times they seemed wil ling to compromise with the FLQ, then turned around and towed the harder federal line. The audacity and timing of the second kidnapping caught everyone by surprise.45 Everyone was scared and unsure of what was next to come. They believed assassinations to be next and wanted to swiftly bring an end to the crisis. Trudeau stated in regards to the mobilizations of the army into Quebec, Well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who dont like to see people with helmets and gunsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in society.46 When asked how far will you go? Trudeau famously replied, Just watch me47 The police needed help. Instead of creating special legislation that would require a time consuming parliamentary debate and would alert terrorists of their plans, the Trudeau government decided to implement the War Measures Act despite knowing that enormous criticism that would accompany it. They thought the FLQ was a large organized group, the WMA would be justified and was the right option. If not it would only be a temporary measure. The War Measures Act was a rough but effective way to cool the situation by taking possible agitators and FLQ sympathizers out of circulation and by assuring the populace that the governments had full control.48 The passing of the Medical Insurance Act ended the specialist doctors strike on the 16th of October. The FLQ had planned demonstrations in support of the strike for that day, but with passing of both the War Measures Act and the Medical Insurance Act, the demonstrations never occurred. The night before the War Measures Act was proclaimed, Quebec was in turmoil. The day after it was calm.49 Twenty-four years after the October Crisis, Mitchell Sharp, who was the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada in 1970, voiced a strong opinion supporting Trudeau. I think that Trudeaus firm leadership, putting the preservation of Law and order above any other consideration was probably the most important single contribution he made to the preservation of peace and democracy in Canada during his time as Prime Ministerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦The first duty of the government is to govern which means never giving in to chaos or terror.50 By the end of the War Measures Act, four hundred and sixty-five people had been arrested; four hundred and three were released. Of the sixty-two not released, only thirty-two were actually charged with only eighteen convicted of minor offences. James Cross released on the 3rd of December, by agreement with authorities, his captors were flown to Cuba. Laportes murderers were captured on 28th of December. The FLQ gained support as a result of various factors. Its members seemed fully entrenched in their cause, but when Cross kidnappers were discovered, they did not demand for the goals of the FLQ but rather asked for exile. They were not as dedicated to the cause as they thought.51 Laportes kidnappers chose to be tried under the Canadian justice system, convicted, and carried out jail sentences. In Francis Simmards memoire he is more intent on justifying his actions rather than revealing any real remorse. In hindsight it is easy to criticize the government s for their use of the War Measures Act. They knew it was an excessive measure at the time, however, time was of the essence and they needed a means of reining control back into the hands of the government in a swift and impactful way. They did not want to allow the FLQ time to gain knowledge of governmental plans of opposition. Tensions and distrust were at an extreme, and all sought a quick end to the crisis. The War Measures Act did what it set out to do, the kidnappings ended, the crisis ended and the temporary act was then removed. Two terrorist cells initiated a political hostage crisis. The RCMP saw the crisis as requiring good, patient, careful police work to solve. The Quebec Ministers in Ottawa deliberately chose to escalate the political magnitude of the crisis to justify emergency powers as a means of intimidating nationalists and separatists.52 Robert Stanfield stated, The arbitrary abrogation of individual rights weake ns rather than strengthens social order.53 Or did Canadians come together in unity by agreeing to forego individual rights and freedoms to retain the democracy of their country? Endnotes Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 161 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 7 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 9 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 9 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 12 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 68 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 21 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 20 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 21 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 22 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 34 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 39 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 40 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 68 Simard, Francis, and David Homel. Talking It Out: The October Crisis from the inside, Translated by David Homel. Montrà ©al, Quà ©bec, Canada: Guernica, 1987. p.p 29 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 4 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 63 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 15 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 51 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 62 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 73 Tetley, William. The October Crisis, 1970: An Insiders View. Montrà ©al: McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. p.p. 70 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 74 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 94 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 94 Bouthillier, Guy, and Edouard Cloutier. Trudeaus Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, October 1970. Montrà ©al: Baraka, 2010. p.p. 73 Simard, Francis, and David Homel. Talking It Out: The October Crisis from the inside, Translated by David Homel. Montrà ©al, Quà ©bec, Canada: Guernica, 1987. p.p 13 Simard, Francis, and David Homel. Talking It Out: The October Crisis from the inside, Translated by David Homel. Montrà ©al, Quà ©bec, Canada: Guernica, 1987. p.p 20 Simard, Francis, and David Homel. Talking It Out: The October Crisi

Shakespeares Othello - Honest Iago :: GCSE Coursework Shakespeare Othello

Othello – Honest Iago Without a doubt, one of the main themes that runs throughout William Shakespeare’s tragic play, Othello, is that of honesty.   In the play, the most interesting character is Iago, who is commonly called and known as "Honest Iago."   However, this could not be farther from the truth.   Through some carefully thought-out words and actions, Iago is able to manipulate others to do things in a way that benefits and moves him closer to his own goals.   He is smart and an expert at judging the characters of others.   Because of this, Iago pushes everyone to their tragic end.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Iago knows very well that trust and deceit must go hand in hand in order for him to achieve his vengeance on Othello and Cassio.   Hence, as he plans the downfalls of them, he is continually trying to obtain their undoubting trust.   He slowly poisons people’s thoughts, creating ideas in their heads without implicating himself.   Iago even says himself that the advice he gives is free and honest and thus, people rarely stop to consider the possibility that Iago is fooling them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   One person Iago deceives is Roderigo.   Throughout the play, Iago tells him that he hates Othello and that Roderigo should make some money so he could give gifts to Desdemona, who he admires from afar.   Thinking that this is sound advice, Roderigo does just that.   However, Iago is actually keeping the gifts that Roderigo plans to give Desdemona for himself.   Eventually, Roderigo begins to catch on to the act and confronts Iago, but he falls right into Iago’s trap again when he tells him that killing Cassio will help him win over Desdemona.   Roderigo is then lead to his death by the hands of "Honest Iago."   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Like Roderigo, Cassio also believes in "Honest Iago," for he thinks that Iago is only trying to help him.   On the night of Cassio’s watch, Iago convinces him to take another drink, knowing very well that it will make him drunk.   Even though he really doesn’t want to, Roderigo puts his faith into   Iago and states, "I’ll do’t, but it dislikes me."   Iago’s plan goes smoothly when Cassio is make to look like an irresponsible fool, resulting in his termination as lieutenant.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Iago’s master plan of deception, however, centered around Othello’s jealously over Desdemona.   The whole time, Othello holds Iago to be his close friend and advisor.

Broken Homes and Marriages

Broken family happens when the two parents are not anymore living together, usually this happens through divorce, but most recently, younger generation increased in number and frequency of single parenthood and early pregnancy (Tiabuilder, 2007). Broken homes, nonetheless might range from actual broken families or instances wherein parents and children seldom meet or have time together or instances when physical/sexual/psychological abuse/s are prevalent.People from broken homes did not experience the same love and affection that can be found in a normal family. Usually, they are provided with little attention and care. Thus, they are less likely to possess the essential qualities that a successful relationship requires. It must be noted that coming from broken homes increased the chances of rebellious behavior/s and delinquency (Tiabuilder, 2007). They are inclined to demand from their partners more attention, understanding and trust, to compensate what they lost.At first the couple with one or both coming from broken homes might become successful but in the long run they are less likely to possess the relative experience and knowledge required to establish a family and work out a marriage. Marriage is about sharing, becoming parents and becoming responsible citizens (Akande, 2008). Without a proper guide, those that came from broken homes lack not only the capability and/or ability but also the knowledge of maintaining a happy and good relationship with their partner or child/ren.More likely, people from broken homes follow the same path as what they had experienced. Work Cited: Akande, J. The Devastating Effects of Divorce and Separation. Retrieved on October 21, 2008, from http://www. myeexpert. com/areasofexpertise. php? id=246. Tiabuilder. The Only Solution To High Divorce Rates and Broken Families. 2007. Retrieved on October 22, 2008, from http://tiabuilder. wordpress. com/2007/04/29/the-only-solution-to-high-divorce-rates-and-broken-families/.

The Intolerable Acts (1774) in the American Revolution

The Intolerable Acts (1774) in the American Revolution The Intolerable Acts were passed in spring 1774, and helped cause the American Revolution (1775-1783). Background In the years after the French and Indian War, Parliament attempted to levy taxes, such as the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts, on the colonies to aid in covering the cost of maintaining the empire. On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act with the goal of aiding the struggling British East India Company. Prior to the passage of the law, the company had been required to sell its tea through London where it was taxed and duties assessed. Under the new legislation, the company would be permitted to sell tea directly to the colonies without the additional cost. As a result, tea prices in America would be reduced, with only the Townshend tea duty assessed. During this period, the colonies, angered by the taxes levied by the Townshend Acts, had been systematically boycotting British goods and claiming taxation without representation. Aware that the Tea Act was an attempt by Parliament to break the boycott, groups such as the Sons of Liberty, spoke out against it. Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally. In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port. Rallying the populace, the members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans and boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the raiders tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. A direct affront to British authority, the Boston Tea Party forced Parliament to take action against the colonies. In retribution for this affront to royal authority, the Prime Minister, Lord North, began passing a series of five laws, dubbed the Coercive or Intolerable Acts, the following spring to punish the Americans. The Boston Port Act Passed on March 30, 1774, the Boston Port Act was a direct action against the city for the previous Novembers tea party. The legislation dictated that the port of Boston was closed to all shipping until full restitution was made to the East India Company and the King for the lost tea and taxes. Also included in the act was the stipulation that the colonys seat of government should be moved to Salem and Marblehead made a port of entry. Loudly protesting, many Bostonians, including Loyalists, argued that the act punished the entire city rather than the few who were responsible for the tea party. As supplies in the city dwindled, other colonies began sending relief to the blockaded city. Massachusetts Government Act Enacted on May 20, 1774, the Massachusetts Government Act was designed to increase royal control over the colonys administration. Abrogating the colonys charter, the act stipulated that its executive council would no longer be democratically elected and its members would instead be appointed by the king. Also, many colonial offices that were previously elected officials would henceforth be appointed by the royal governor. Across the colony, only one town meeting was permitted a year unless approved by the governor. Following General Thomas Gages use of the act to dissolve the provincial assembly in October 1774, Patriots in the colony formed the Massachusetts Provincial Congress which effectively controlled all of Massachusetts outside of Boston. Administration of Justice Act Passed the same day as the previous act, the Administration of Justice Act stated that royal officials could request a change of venue to another colony or Great Britain if charged with criminal acts in fulfilling their duties. While the act allowed travel expenses to be paid to witnesses, few colonists could afford to leave work to testify at a trial. Many in the colonies felt it was unnecessary as British soldiers had received a fair trial after the Boston Massacre. Dubbed the Murder Act by some, it was felt that it allowed royal officials to act with impunity and then escape justice. Quartering Act A revision of the 1765 Quartering Act, which was largely ignored by colonial assemblies, the 1774 Quartering Act expanded the types of buildings in which soldiers could be billeted and removed the requirement that they be provided with provisions. Contrary to popular belief, it did not permit the housing of soldiers in private homes. Typically, soldiers were first to be placed in existing barracks and public houses, but thereafter could be housed in inns, victualing houses, empty building, barns, and other unoccupied structures. Quebec Act Though it did not have a direct effect on the thirteen colonies, the Quebec Act was considered part of the Intolerable Acts by the American colonists. Intended to ensure the loyalty of the kings Canadian subjects, the act greatly enlarged Quebecs borders and allowed the free practice of the Catholic faith. Among the land transferred to Quebec was much of the Ohio Country, which had been promised to several colonies through their charters and to which many had already laid claim. In addition to angering land speculators, others were fearful about the spread of Catholicism in American. Intolerable Acts - Colonial Reaction In passing the acts, Lord North had hoped to detach and isolate the radical element in Massachusetts from the rest of the colonies while also asserting the power of Parliament over the colonial assemblies. The harshness of the acts worked to prevent this outcome as many in the colonies rallied to Massachusetts’s aid. Seeing their charters and rights under threat, colonial leaders formed committees of correspondence to discuss the repercussions of the Intolerable Acts. These led to the convening of the First Continental Congress at Philadelphia on September 5. Meeting at Carpenters Hall, delegates debated various courses for bringing pressure against Parliament as well as whether they should draft a statement of rights and liberties for the colonies. Creating the Continental Association, the congress called for a boycott of all British goods. If the Intolerable Acts were not repealed within a year, the colonies agreed to halt exports to Britain as well as support Massachusetts if it was attacked. Rather than exact punishment, Norths legislation worked to pull the colonies together and pushed them down the road towards war.

Describe law and order in London in the late nineteeth essays

Describe law and order in London in the late nineteeth essays The police solved crimes by relighing very heavily on a huge network of information who roamed the dark streets of the east of London also they did door to door knocking and asking residents for answers, their was careful searches and enquiries which revealed very little because their were no real whitnesses to the Ripper attacks. The police had a tough image as they didn't carry weapons on the streets, when the police was scared they were eager to resort to the army. Capital punishment was meant to stop deter criminals. (The threat of capital punishment or transportation). The number of crimes punishable by death had reduced from the early nineteenth century of about 223 crimes to 50 by the end of the century because it was clear that these punishments didn't work. The polices reputation was not respected because in investigations the police showed force and made no nonsence approaches and were very tough mainly only the unruly poor e.g. in 1887 a mass riot of the unemployed in Trafalger squarem, which sir Charles Warren suppresses through military force. The police investigations on crimes derived from the politics. Corruption had been uncovered in the higher areas of the CID. The met police were regarded as an increasingly militaristic force as the press had supported the forces and law and order in cracking down mainly in the unruly poor then began to support the working classes. Societys problems was that there was too much alcoholism in the streets and alot of thefts and alot of pick pocketing, other society problems was that there was over 1,200 prostetudes in the streets and in doss houses so the crime rates had been rising. Crime is rife because there is so much unimployment and it is increasing so it means that people need the money and the only way of getting money is to steal from people and places. Crime is also rife because the streets were like mazes and dark also very crouded, their was dirty side streets and a...

Life, change, and stress. Holmes, T.H., and Rahe, R.H.(1967). The Essay

Life, change, and stress. Holmes, T.H., and Rahe, R.H.(1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218 - Essay Example A list of life events commonly viewed as stressful was rated by subject based on the amount of stress they think it produced. Stress was described as a change from one’s stable state, so raters may interpret it as either positive or negative, as long as it produced a degree of adaptation, change or coping. This scale was named Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). This scale was used by many researches to link life stress with the probability or existence of illness in a person. However, such psychosomatic illnesses were argued to also be caused by other factors such as one’s experience with a stressful event, coping skills, the strength of one’s physiological system, how one deals with an illness when it occurs, Sudden, negative events that an individual has no control of were found out to be more predictive of illness than positive controllable life changes. The SRRS has helped in many researches to determine this finding. However, this common-sensical result has put the SRRS in question as to its reliability and validity in predicting illness from stress. One criticism is that it does not take into account a person’s interpretation of a particular event. An example may be one’s interpretation of retirement. Person A may view it as a loss of a career, or being put ‘on the shelf’, while Person B may view it as the ultimate highlight of a fulfilling career because it spells the end of a lifetime of hard work. To rectify this, some researchers suggest that the SRRS would be more accurate if it would allow an individual to rate the event on some measure of severity in accordance to his own interpretation. Cohen, Kamarck and Mermelstein developed such a scale and call ed it the Perceived Stress Scale. Nevertheless, many studies still rely on the SRRS in studies with stress. The authors claim that the balance of negative and

Foundations of the law of Obligations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Foundations of the law of Obligations - Essay Example The defendant responded to the offer with a counter-offer by setting out new terms and conditions and excluding the price variation clause (Koffman and Macdonald 134). The counter-offer contained an acknowledgement slip that explicitly set out that the buyer’s conditions would form the basis of the contract. The plaintiff signed the acknowledgement slip and delivered it back to the buyer. Plaintiff (seller) retuned the cover letter stating that delivery was to be ‘in accordance with our revised quotation of May 23rd’. The Court held that the counter-offer by Ex-cell Co extinguished the validity of the original offer by Butler Machine Co thus price variation clause did not form part of the contract. In addition, by signing the tear-off acknowledgement slip send by Ex-Cell Co, Butler Machine Co had signified and validly accepted a new offer thus destroying their original offer. The issues that arose centered on the battle of forms when parties send their own terms a nd conditions that they seek to be applied to the contract (Taylor and Taylor 153). In this case, the terms and conditions send by the last party to communicate usually form the basis of the contract and thus the valid terms and conditions for the contract were those send by buyer (Ex-Cell C0). The majority adopted the ‘mirror image’ approach to valid contract formation by asserting that acceptance must mirror the terms contained in the offer. According to this mirror image approach, a buyer’s order that contains variations of the seller’s offer quotation should not be construed as an acceptance, but a counter-offer (Charman78). Young asserts that a legally binding contract requires offer and acceptance, but some unusual commercial transactions may entail negotiations that are evidenced by a series of passing of documents such as quotation, purchase order and acknowledgement of the purchase order ( 89). United Kingdom still conforms to the ‘last shot rule’ in determining the battle of forms contract cases since a counter-offer rejects the original offer (Mulcahy 102). This traditional way of analysis of the offer and acceptance is evident in the case of Trollope & Colls Ltd v Atomic Power Construction Ltd (1963) 1. W.L.R 333 when the court held that a counter-offer kills the original offer. Acceptance of the counter-offer must be communicated in order to form a valid contract as evidenced by the requirement of acknowledgement slip by Ex-Cell Co (Poole 18) Under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of goods (CISG), Article 19 (1) asserts that an offer that purports to be an acceptance, but contains additional terms, limitations and conditions is a rejection of the initial offer and amounts to a counter-offer (Richards 321). Article 19 (1) clarifies that additional terms that affect the quality, price and time of delivery to the extent of the liability of one party are considered to alter t he original offer materially thus amounts to counter-offer (Bix 190). Under the principles of European contract law, Article 2.208, a reply by offeree that contains new terms is rejection of the initial offer. UNIDROIT PICC Article 2.11 on battle of forms, a counter-offer rejects original offer while Article 2.22 requires the parties to indicate in advance or immediately of their