Environmental Proposal and Presentation Essay Example for Free

Environmental Proposal and Presentation Essay For this assignment we chose the Patton-Fuller Community Hospital for our virtual organization. This facility is a non-for-profit social insurance association that has supplied an extremely wide cluster of preferred value aids and offices to the town of Kelsey and the encompassing groups since 1975. The healing center supplies centered utilities for example emergency restorative consideration, surgery, work and committal, private medicine and radiology for developed persons and youthful kids. As one of the first facilities in Kelsey, they are besides dedicated to supplying a sort of projects that will underpin the health and welfare of their neighborhood inhabitant numbers (Apollo Group, 2006). The prime causes for hospital’s actuality from a dissection of the task, dream, and objectives are to be the social insurance affiliation of elective for patients, human services masters and M.D.s. Other nexus explanations are to supply esteem honor scoring social insurance aids to the group by viably treating contaminations and damages, supplying early mediation and preventive consideration, and twofold-checking their workers embraces inventiveness, respectability, esteem, aid, teamwork and freedom (Gwinnett health Center, 2009). In this entry we will infer two strategies to make collusions between the Patton-Fuller Community Hospital and its arranged inner and outside stakeholders. We will likewise clarify how the contrasts between administration and administration influence organizing inside the Patton-Fuller Community Hospital. At long last, we will recommend a nature that is supportive of crew working and studying and that considers maintainable improvement and imaginatively inside the Patton-Fuller Community Hospital. BusinessDictionary.com (2009) describes stakeholders as: Persons, gathering, or cooperation that has immediate or digressive venture in an organization on the grounds that it can influence or be affected by the organization’s exercises, targets, and arrangements. Enter stakeholders in a venture affiliation envelop lenders, clients, heads, laborers, legislature, proprietors, dealers, mergers, and the group from which the venture portrayals its assets. In spite of the fact that stake holding is ordinarily self-legitimizing, not all stakeholders are equivalent and dissimilar stakeholders merit to unique concerns. Core stakeholders of the facility are the laborers, patients, guests, speculators, and the group. Smallwood, N., Sweetman, K. Ulrich, D. (2007, November 11) state: Employees longing to work in an area where they can meet their distinctive yearnings and likes. Pioneers who imagine assignments, work domains, and visions help laborers be both skilled and promised to their work. Patients need to comprehend that they are getting the greatest consideration reasonable and be skilled to accept the forethought suppliers. Voyagers longing to grasp their friends and family are acquiring the finest forethought and that they can accept guardians. Communities need chiefs to construct affiliations that are collectively mindful, with hoe they treat the indigenous nature and how they help the greater group. Speculators-need supervisors to keep their vows, advance an influencing evolvement technique arrange focus abilities to the plan then afterward to twofold-watch that folks are promised to committing on these manufacturing. At the point that they do, gurus pay the affiliation with abnormal amounts of confidence sometime to come, which changes over into higher business worth. Controllers need chiefs to administer themselves in concurrence with heightened moral standards and in a kind predictable with master and legitimate guidelines. The difference between leadership is when it comes to a company you work for a manage needs to decide what the company can do to become better. The management has to come up with a conclusion to come together with a project that they can do to keep business flowing and customers to keep coming. Leaders can get the job done if the employees are doing their job. Some people do less work then others therefore that can bring a company down depending on what they are doing at the job. If you practice more on a job you can get more things done even if you have to ask a manager to give you more things to do. If you do less then less performance will get done. No practice will show and more improvement will be needed from that person. It is always areas that you will definite need improvement to do good and in areas that you fall short. You also can start off with what is easy to you and come back and do the hardest part later. Some people thrive on getting better while others are there just to get a paycheck. We all have to deal with different task at a job whether it is easy or hard. You can get ahead a lot quick then waiting for someone to do your job for you. People that doing well; it will better them later on down the road. This is the best time to get things done now and it will get you a better future later. Today is the best time to develop and accomplish new ideas in the company. Leaders will guide you and make sure you are getting the job done the right way. They also like to guide you to look at things in a very different way in life. Management means stay on task and gets focus on what your job is. There is room to self-develop in the work place. They would like to get and input on what makes people do the things they do. People are very different in many different ways no two people thinks alike. When good managers see you are doing a good job that really makes them feel good. They will let you know and mention to the boss. When you have a great manager they will make sure that the work they gave you has gotten done and therefore, you can move to the next task. They want employees to keep things done the right way in a straight and narrow. Sometimes it take good strong leadership to get people to pull together to get the work done. If you are motivate you can achieve your goals when you have good leadership it tends to make people wants to succeed motivation can come from growing and wanting to be successful. Managing stress in a workplace can depend on the mental or physical level of what could have happen in that people life. Tell the manager about your stress in the workplace can be very risky or very effective. Stress can affect you mental and physical in our personal lives. Too much stress can affect our jobs and getting things done that we tend to forget about in our daily lives with so much going on as far as school, children, work and other etc. Some signs of stress can include headaches making mistakes and being very forgetfulness. Make sure you are taking a break and eat lunch or talking to someone so you won’t get burnt out about things that are taking our attention. Don’t take alcohol or do drugs while you are stressing it really just adds to the problem. The best thing to do is get counseling or see a doctor to discuss your problems. It can be helpful for others to know how you are doing. Stress can also lead to depression it can get in the way of your daily routines and communication to others. Be aware of the stress you can cause up on yourself and continue to get help. Patton Fuller Community Hospital’s point is to come to be a trusted organization in the company of its clients and scratch stakeholders, by supplying worth client mind and utilities to all its patients and by helping and reckonings of nexus stakeholders. Today with the expansion of wellbeing forethought costs, the necessity for productive consideration administration is on the register of essential concerns. Patton-Fuller comprehends this requirement and accordingly centers on the viewpoints of nexus stakeholders, patients, suppliers and laborers in the team effort technique. In place for the group to relegate on its promise to be the medicinal services cooperation of decision for patients, medicinal services masters and M.D.s, Patton-Fuller comprehends the vitality of useful territory interrelationships in which organize, inspire and summon enter staff in the course of the attainment of lifelong organizational objectives and targets.

Cold War :: essays research papers

At the conclusion of the WWII Germany was divided into 4 zones of occupation controlled by Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Berlin, the capital of Germany, was located in the Soviet controlled section of Germany. Lack of agreement and compromise with the Soviet Union concerning the unity of Germany led to the beginning of the Cold War.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The term Cold War was first used by an American Financier Bernard Baruch in a congressional debate in 1947. A cold war can be defined as a condition of tension and conflict short of an actual war as was the case with America and the Soviet Union. In June 1948 the three allies, France, Great Britain, and the United States, established the German Federal Republic in West Germany, which they controlled. The Soviet Union however opposed any government run by any western powers and took many measures to prevent this new government from staying in power. On June 24, 1948 the soviets began a blockade of all land traffic to the western zone of Berlin, hoping to starve it of supplies and perhaps breaking down. But the US, France, and Great Britain, would not back down to the Soviets and so they began to airlift all supplies to West Germany. After about a year on May 12, 1949 the soviets realized their defeat and ended the blockade.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The United States realized that the soviets expansionist aims threatened not only Europe but developing nations of the world as well. So in 1949 President Truman approved the Point Four Program which put aside nearly $400 million for technical development in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Truman had the idea that if these developing countries would modernize and strengthen their economies the growth of communism would be discouraged. In 1949 the United States joined with 11 other western nations in an alliance to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which provided collective security in Europe and any other part of the world but the main goal was to contain communism. Shortly after the Soviet Union and seven other European nations joined to form an opposing alliance under the Warsaw Pact. Now practically the entire world was involved. Truman struck fear into people’s hearts when in September of 1949 he announced that the soviets had successf ully exploded an atomic bomb.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Meanwhile back in the United States fear of the Soviet Union and communism were rapidly growing.

Poetic Language Essay

There is no denying that when an author writes a text there is more meaning in it than just the obvious plot, authors constantly litter their texts with themes, double entendre, metaphor etc. all of which can be easily missed by the reader. If one reader was to miss many of these techniques but another was to pickup on most, then surely the latter would have understood the work better, and in the way it was intended, and therefore their interpretation is the more valid of the two. However we could argue that the text was written badly, because certain readers cannot understand it in the way it was intended. All this is just a small part of one of the biggest debates in modern literature and criticism, and that is whether or not it is necessary to know the history and context behind a book to fully understand it. It used to be that a critic would say that the best way to understand a work is to understand each individual author, and the circumstances behind their text, today however the general feeling is that it is best not to cloud the readers judgement with all the facts behind a text. Critics would today say that the best way to read a text is to ignore everything that goes with it and just concentrate on what you, the reader, picks up from it. The reason this debate is so important in relation to this essay is that the amount of information the reader is given about a text will always affect, not only their understanding of it, but also the way in which they understand it. That is to say that if a reader is given a lot of information about a text then it is bound to make them except the book in the way it was intended. If they had not been given that information then it is very likely that they would have interpreted it in a way that was closer and more personal to them (‘interpretation is a function of identity†¦all of us as we read, use literary work to symbolise and finally to replicate ourselves’ – Norman Holland, Introduction to Literature 13). In this example which of the two interpretations is more creditable, should the perfect text be written in such a way as to eliminate any interpretations other than what was intended by the author; or should it be written in a way that leaves the meaning open to debate and therefore have an infinite number of interpretations? Either way once a text has been shown to the public then the author has no control of what the reader will make of it, or how it is interpreted, and so it is left to the reader to make their own judgements and except it in the way that they want to. So is their interpretation incorrect? Obviously there is no way to prove the answer to this question but in this essay I intend to discuss both sides to the argument and draw up a conclusion as to what I think the answer is. The most obvious place to start would be by looking at other people’s interpretations of texts, and some of those interpretations are in films. I realise that film is never the best example to use when discussing literature because the plot and script are very rarely the same as the original. However, in the case of Shakespeare, this is not always true because the text is so well written and so powerful that it would be wrong and completely missing the point of making the film if you were to change it. Also the interpretations in films are usually much more diverse and varied which makes it a good example to look at because if you can find an interpretation which has been recommended to students as one not to use, as valid (‘†¦most candidates appeared to know Macbeth well. Some, however, were handicapped by having seen a film version†¦candidates should remember that it is Shakespeare’s text which is being examined.’ – Holderness, Interpreting Shakespeare 113); then that goes a long way to show that any interpretation is indeed a valid one. In the conclusion of a book called Interpreting Shakespeare on Screen the author sums up how Shakespeare is generally interpreted by the directors: ‘I have considered the ways in which films of Shakespeare’s plays, like literary criticism, produce different views on issues such as violence (by, to a greater extent, pretending it is absent from Shakespeare’s plays); gender (film changes gender roles, producing different Ophilias and Gertrudes†¦); sexuality†¦; race†¦; and finally, nationalism†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Cartmell, Interpreting Shakespeare 109) Cartmell shows us here how every different director has interpreted parts of the same play differently. She makes it clear that she does not agree with everything they have done, however she does recognise them as valid interpretations and has devoted a lot of time and effort to studying these films and producing a book which shows us the different interpretations and techniques used in filming Shakespeare’s plays. I have to agree with Cartmell on the point that to try and say that there is no violence in Shakespeare is ridiculous, all you have to do is look at Macbeth or Hamlet to see that that is wrong. These directors who have chosen to ignore this violence must have interpreted it in a different way, perhaps they saw the violence as justified and so chose to ignore it for that reason. Whatever the reason, is this interpretation as valid as Cartmell’s and mine? I would like to say that it is not but I cannot rule it out without having the other side of the argument put to me, and once an argument has been put forward surely that gives their view some sort of validity. If you have two people who have interpreted a section of prose differently and they can both argue their theory well then who is to say that they are not both valid. On the other hand if you again have two people with different views about a book’s meaning but this time one of them manages to persuade the other that they are wrong and so changes his mind, then would this not mean that the person with the better and stronger argument is the only one with the valid interpretation? After all the dictionary definition of valid is ‘soundly reasoned or having legal force’ and so if someone has an opinion about a text and stands by it but cannot argue the point surely this makes their opinion an invalid one. In An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory reader-response criticism is summed up in three different ways. Firstly it is said that each individual, when reading, will always respond in a personal way. They will take what is written and match it to the situation they are in or have been in, and so can relate to the text better by doing this. This theory would explain why different people come up with different interpretations, it also suggests that each of those interpretations are valid because if you are relating a text to your personal experiences then it has to be a genuine response. Like every theory though there is always another side to the argument and this is where Stanley Fish’s idea that each reader belongs to a ‘community of readers’ comes in. There is still the idea that the reader relates to the text with their personal experience, and I do not think that many people would dispute that idea, but what Fish says is that the personal side to it is much more generalised. It is more to do with your background and your education, someone from England would interpret a book differently than someone from Africa because their backgrounds are completely different. The third explanation that is given is Wolfgang Iser’s view, which is the one I relate to the most. His theory is that the reader’s imagination is what produces the interpretation. If there is a point in the text which is not fully explained then we, the reader, are left to work it out for ourselves, for example in King Lear when Cordillia tells her father that she loves him ‘according’ to her ‘bond’, the reader is left wondering why she did that and not just make something up to rival her sisters’ answers; was it because she is stubborn or perhaps for moral reasons? The answer that the reader comes up with is their imagination filling in the gap. As Iser said the reader ‘is drawn into the events and made to supply what is meant from what is not said’ (Iser 1995, 24). This is particularly relevant when it comes to explaining interpretation because it is ‘what is not said’ in a text that gets the reader thinking, if a detail is mentioned but not explained then it is left to the reader to make up their own conclusions. Northrop Frye shares the same opinion as Iser, he wrote that reading is ‘like a picnic to which the author brings the words and the reader the meaning’ (Frye, http://www.clas.ufi.edu). Interpretation is a huge part of literature, it is involved in any type of reading that we do and it is completely up to the reader to how that literature is receive. The author, or his input anyway, dies as soon as they let the public see their text which leaves the reader on their own to read between the lines and come up with whatever they like. Having said this it leaves us thinking that if the author leaves the interpretation up to the reader then how can that interpretation be wrong, every author excepts the fact that their book will be taken in a way that wasn’t intended and they will not try to change that because it is all part of literary criticism. An author wouldn’t ever say that someone’s opinion was invalid because valid does not mean it is what was intended it only means that it is justified. One of Iser’s main points whenever he is talking of interpretation is that ‘Every interpretation transposes something into a different register that is not part of the subject matter to be interpreted. Therefore each interpretation is an act of translation, in the course of which something is shifted into what it is not.’ (Iser, http://sun3.lib.uci.edu). What he means is that interpretation might as well mean the same as translation when talking about literature; because the author is not sitting next to the reader and explaining what was actually meant the reader has to do the working out for themselves, which means that they may translate what is written in front of them into ‘what it is not’. The reader is reading things in the text which were not put there deliberately, they are reading not what is said but what has not been said so a large group of people who all read the same text have no chance of all reading the same thing because everybody wi ll have filled in the gaps slightly differently. ‘If the poem has a voice, it is articulated before, and one rearticulates it, reads it with one’s own voice, one has a reading which cannot properly be univocal.’ (John Lye, http://www.brocku.ca/english). This is much the same point as Frye was making with his example of a picnic; the author only produces the words and then it is the reader’s job to find meaning to these words. That almost makes it sound as if the reader has the greater task out of the two and it maybe that they do if once they have read a work and come up with their interpretation (or translation) they are then told that it is not a valid reading of that text. I have said that this topic of interpretation is one of the largest in modern literature and it is very closely linked with an equally large topic, deconstruction. The obvious source to turn to on this is The Critic as Host. In Lye’s commentary of this essay he makes a very good summary of what Miller had written: ‘Deconstruction, Miller seems to be concluding, opens us to the power and the complexities of language, thought, tradition, influence, meaning, to the ambiguities and paradoxes which really constitute what we once mistook for a unified field theory of human knowledge, by providing a form, a way of proceeding, which acknowledges the deep mysteries of meaning and which allows us to free ourselves from the tyrannies of univocal reading.’ (Lye, http://www.brocku.ca/english). There are two parts to this quote that I want to briefly discuss. Firstly, the fact that deconstruction ‘opens us to the power’ of language, thought and meaning. This cannot be said better in any other way, this is exactly what deconstruction does and it is this that leads the readers on to making their own interpretations of a text. Deconstruction makes us, the reader, think and analyse what has been written and from that draw up our conclusion of what was actually meant. The second part I wanted to look at is the fact that deconstruction allows us ‘to free ourselves from the tyrannies of univocal reading.’ Is ‘univocal reading’ actually a tyranny? Miller and Lye obviously think so, and I would agree, if literature was as straight cut as being able to read a book and draw up exactly the same interpretation ass everyone else there would be no need or point to study it. So how does deconstruction free us from this tyranny? The answer is because it forces the reader to think for themselves, to interpret a text in the way they want it interpreted instead of how the author, or even a teacher tells them to interpret it. Deconstruction forces the reader to be open minded about a text; to try and read something almost original into it. Again this all leads to a different interpretation to what others have read. However, the question of whether thinking for oneself, and the new ideas and interpretations that brings is valid or not is still present. When I picked this question I always thought that the only possible answer was that every interpretation is a valid one, that is the opinion that most people hold. However, after exploring the topic I have found a few doubts. Although they come to expect it, is it really fair to take an authors text that they have probably been working on for a matter of years and completely change the meaning of it? Surely what they write is personal to them, not necessarily as an experience they have had but more that they have devoted so much time to their work to a standard that they see as perfection. They then introduce it to the public and a critic misinterprets it and gives it a bad review because they did not like their own translation of what was written. These doubts I have are not strong enough to change my mind, but they are there and should not be ignored. In closing I do believe that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and literary criticism is exactly that, opinions. There is no way to write a text and ensure that every reader interprets it in the way it was intended. Authors are very interested to learn about different interpretations of their works and I think that it is this acceptance and acknowledgement from them that not proves but should persuade people that any interpretation of any work is a valid one. I will finish with a quote from an interpretation of Miller’s The Critic as Host that sums up what I believe to be the answer to whether all interpretations are valid or not: ‘The root of idea is the word for image. To imagine is to image. All figures are not what they figure. Univocality is impossible. Everything always means something else.'(Lye,http://www.brocku.ca/english).

Biology and Anatomy Games and Quizzes