Robin Cook Englsh Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Robin Cook Englsh - Research Paper Example At present Robin Cook currently has both occupation and residence in Florida alone. Yet he has in recent times won the awards that include the 2002 "Author of Vision" offered by the RP International organization and in 2004 he was effectively issued an appointment by President George W. Bush personally to the Woodrow Wilson Board of Trustees. In pertaining to the business showground, Dr. Cook is known to be the cofounder of an Internet software company, a partner of a New Hampshire sports complex, and has substantial real estate properties. Previously he has been known to own a restaurant and a construction company. His hobbies primarily comprise interior and architectural design, period renovation, with specific athletics including basketball, tennis, skiing, and surfing. Doctor cum author Robin Cook is generally accredited with familiarizing the term "medicinal" to the thriller genre or fictitious and nonfiction storytelling. Even after thirty-four years subsequent to the periodica l publication of his innovation novel, Coma, he remains to be dominant in the category he shaped. Cook has efficaciously unified medical facts with futuristic fantasy to harvest a string of twenty-eight New York Times bestsellers that have been periodically translated into forty some languages. To date still, they include Outbreak Mind bend Mutation, Harmful Intent, Vital Signs , Blind sight , Terminal , Fatal Cure, Acceptable Risk , Contagion , Chromosome 6 ,Toxin , Vector , Shock , Seizure, Marker ,Crisis , Critical , Foreign Body , and Intervention . Putnam published Cook's most recent novel, Cure, in 2010. His volumes have retailed approximately to 100 million copies. In every novel, Robin Cook endeavors to explicate numerous... Cook's narratives obligated to forestall nationwide debate. Interviewer Stephen McDonald spoke to him regarding his novel Shock; while Cook admits that the timing of book was indeed unexpected. "I suppose that you could say that it's the most like Coma in that it deals with an issue that everybody seems to be concerned about," he further quoted, "I wrote this book to address the stem cell issue, which the public really doesn't know anything about. Besides entertaining readers, my main goal is to get people interested in some of these issues, because it's the public that ultimately really should decide which way we ought to go in something as ethically questioning as stem cell research." Cook articulates he selected to transcribe thrillers because the forum gives him "an opportunity to get the public interested in things about medicine that they didn't seem to know about. I believe my books are actually teaching people." The writer acknowledges he not once assumed that he would obliga te to such persuasive substantial marterial to work with as soon as he initiated writing fiction in 1970.

Burke Litwin 1992 Essay Example for Free

Burke Litwin 1992 Essay Change is depicted in terms of both process and content, with particular emphasis on transformational as compared with transactional factors. Transformational change occurs as a response to the external environment and directly affects organizational mission and strategy, the organiz. ations leadership, atid culture, lit ttirn, tfie transactional factors are affected—strtictute. systems, management practices, and climate. These transformational and transactional factors together affect motivation, which, in turn, affects peifornumce. In support of the models potential validity, theory and research as wellaspraetke are cited. Orgatiization change is a kind of chaos (Gleick. 1987). The number of variables changing at the same lime, the magnitude of environmental change, and the frequent resistance of human systetns cteate a whole confluence of ptocesses that are extremely difficult to predict and almost impossible to control. Nevertheless, there are consistent patterns that exist—linkages among classes of events that have been demonstrated repeatedly in the research literature and can be seen in actual organizations. The enormous and pervasive impact of culture and beliefs— to the point where it causes organizations to do fundamentally unsound things ftom a business point of view^would be such an observed phenotnenon. To build a most likely model describing the causes of organizational performance and change, we must explore two important lines of thinking. First, we must understand more thoroughly how organizations function (i. e. , what leads to what). Second, given our tiiodel of causation, we must understand how organizations might be deliberately changed. The linkage typically is in the direction of theory and research to practice: that is. to ground our consultation in what is known, what is theoretically and empirically sound. Creation of the tnodel to be presented in this article was not quite in that knowledge-to-practice direction, however. With respect to theory, we sttongly believe in the open system framework, especially represented by Katz and Kahn (1978). Thus, any organizational model that we might develop would stem from an input-throughput-output, with a feedback loop, format. The tnodei presented hete is definitely of that genre. In other wotds. the fundamental framework for the model evolved from theory. The components of the model and what causes what and in what order, on the other hand, have evolved frotn our practice. To risk stating what is often not politic to admit in academic circles, we admit that the ultimate development of our causal model evolved from practice, not extensive theory or tesearch. What we are attempting with this article, therefore, is a theoretical and empirical justification of what we clearly believe works. To be candid, we acknowledge that our attempt is not unlike attribution theory—we are explaining our beliefs and actions ex post facto: This seemed to have worked; I wonder if the literature supports our action. Our consulting efforts over a period of about 5 years with British Airways taught us a lot^—what changes seemed to have worked and what activities clearly did not. It was from these experiences that our model took form. As a case example, we refer to the work at British Airways later in this article. For a more recent overview of that change effort, . see Goodstein and Burke (1991).

New Economic Policy Failure

New Economic Policy Failure During World War I, Tsar Nicholas II made the terrible mistake of commanding Russias grand army by himself, and allowing Grigori Rasputin to give personal advice on how to direct it. Most mistakes made from then on out were blamed on Nicholas II by the people, and it was deemed time for change. In early 1917, tensions within the population led Nicholas II to abdicate and flee the country and a provisional government was put in place (BBC Lenin). The Germans saw this as an opportunity to get rid of Russia as an opponent and decided to send Vladimir Lenin, a member of the Soviet Communist Party, into power. The provisional government was quickly overthrown and Lenin was installed into power during the October Revolution through the Germans and the Bolsheviks. After signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the population became outraged that they lost so much land after exiting the war. A civil war erupted because of this, and in the chaos, Tsar Nicholas II was executed. Lenin saw that Rus sia was in a state of turmoil after exiting World War I and silencing the civil war, so he was determined to fix the economy. After the civil war, Lenin revised the economic policies and introduced the New Economic Policy (BBC The NEP). The imposition of the New Economic Policy in 1921 incorporated western economic ideas, such as peasants controlling businesses, causing Russia to depend more on its agricultural sector and in turn, brought it back to its pre-war state. (it incorporated western economic ideas, which were ultimately unsuccessful in raising russia from its prewar state) When Lenin first took power in 1918, Russia was in what he called a state of War Communism (Carr 147). He toyed with this system at first, and eventually decided to drop it due to peasents and workers revolting in the Tambov and Kronstadt Rebellions. In 1920, he declared that, We must show the peasants that the organisation of industry on the basis of modern, advanced technology, on electrification, which will provide a link between town and country, will put an end to the division between town and country, will make it possible to raise the level of culture in the countryside and to overcome, even in the most remote corners of land, backwardness, ignorance, poverty, disease, and barbarism (Lenin). Also in 1920, agricultural output had been reduced to only half of its pre-World War I level, foreign trade had decreased, and industrial production had fallen to only a small fraction of its pre-war levels. The peasants were the basis of the people, or the proletariat according to Carl Marx, and Lenin deemed it necessary to start with the lowest class to ensure that everyone grasps the new ideals that he was going to impose. The current leaders of the economy, as exclaimed by Lenin, were the bourgeois. In order to thwart their rule, Lenin revised the War Communism policies, and produced the New Economic Policy. In accordance with Marxs views, Lenin thought that, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must use the means of production that are property of others in order to produce, and, consequently, earn their living (Carr 270). The New Economic Policy was instituted on March 21, 1921. The first eight months of the transition from War Communism to the NEP failed to displace the bourgeois to install the socialist economic order. It almost seemed as if the main goal of the policy at the time was to get the bourgeois out of power, and that the policy wasnt really formulated for the long run (Carr 269). This new policy was stepping away from the communist ideals of earlier periods in Russia. The Bolsheviks didnt approve of this policy made by Lenin, as they thought it was stretching communist ideals (Carr 156). Many of the Bolsheviks ended up leaving the government because of this, but Lenin held his position, and continued on with the imposition. The NEP was thought to be a new agricultural policy as well. The Bolsheviks viewed traditional village life as conservative and backward (Carr 152). The old way of village life was reminiscent of the Tsarist Russia that had supposedly been thrown out with the October Revolution. With the NEP, methods were put in place which promoted the pursuit by peasants of their self-interests. However, the government only allowed private landholdings because the idea of collectivized farming had met with much opposition. The practice of collectivized farming was when the government wouldnt collect tax in the shape of money from the proletariat, but they would be required to give the leaders a portion of their crop. The NEP stated that requisitioning of food and agricultural surpluses, a ideal of War Communism, must be ended. Instead, the government would tax the peasants on a fixed percentage of their production. Trotsky had already proposed a similar policy, but it was rejected by his fellow colleagues, including Lenin. Basically, this promoted a free agricultural market in Russia. With the free agricultural market came a great toll on the people of Russia. The Soviet authorities were constantly preoccupied with the danger that supplies of food to the towns and the army and of agricultural raw materials to industry would be inadequate. On the other hand, the persistent efforts of the same authorities to increase the share of resources available to industry constantly threatened the economic basis of the relationship between the regime and the peasantry. The Soviet authorities were right in the end. Prices for industry made products such as metals, tools, etc., skyrocketed to over 250% of their value before World War One was started. This in turn caused a major split between the prices of industrial products and agricultural products which caused a major food shortage due to farmers not being able to buy supplies and tools to produce crops. Like the blades of a pair of scissors, the terms of trade between town and country began to diverge in 1923 in favor of the mainly state-run industrial economy and at the expense of rural consumers. The reason for the Scissors Crisis was that agricultural production had rebounded quickly from the devastating famine of 1921 while industrial infrastructure was relatively slow to recover from the Civil Wars destruction. Thus, whereas textile production, essential to providing cloth to mass consumers, was only 26 percent of the pre-war level in 1922, agriculture reached 75 percent. By October 1923 when the crisis reached its peak, industrial prices were 276% of pre-war/1913 levels, while agricultural prices were only 89%. At this point, the state took vigorous action to make the producers prices go down. Costs were reduced by cutting staffs in industry. As a result of these measures as well as the success of the newly established Peoples Commissariat of Trade in making inroads into areas previously dependent on NEPmen, the scissors began to close. By April 1924 the agricultural price index had risen slightly to 92% and the industrial index had fallen to 131%. When the Scissors Crisis ended in 1923, Lenin became ill with a stroke, and died in late 1924. Stalin took over, and wiped out the New Economic Policy and instituted his Five Year Plans, showing that the economic policies provided by Lenin had little impact on the future of Russia. Also, as a result of the Scissor Crisis, the government corrected the industrial and agricultural parts of the economy, dragging their cost back down to pre-war times. The economic state within Russia depended on collective farming and free market farming, and how those two parts of agriculture did as a whole. With the reliance on the agricultural sector controlling the economy, the New Economic Policy imposed by Lenin ultimately failed in the sense of industrializing Russia.

Efficient America: Women, Progressivism, and the New Meaning of Citizenship :: Essays Papers

Efficient America: Women, Progressivism, and the New Meaning of Citizenship The end of the 19th Century brought with it what Woodrow Wilson called, â€Å"a new sense of union,† a cease-fire in sectional political strife that ended a century-long conflict in the United States, but the effects of the Industrial Revolution were already ushering in a new kind of domestic debate. This one would be couched in much of the same rhetoric of rights and equality and freedom that characterized the previous conflict, but it would address not the political functions of the American government, but the scope of its economic authority and what it owed the American people by virtue of that authority. A new national obsession with science and efficiency emerged in tandem with this debate, and the old foundations of the republic began to be evaluated by scientific rather than philosophical or religious standards. Caught in the fray of this conflict were the popular reform movements of the early 20th Century, whose causes came to be viewed in the same economic terms that characterized the major national issues of the day. The women’s movement was among those that exchanged its 19th Century rhetoric of rights based on religion, Enlightenment philosophy, and Constitutional ideals for a platform that emphasized the economic utility of increased rights and a widened sphere for women, and that fell more closely in line with the modern progressive philosophies of pragmatism and scientific rationalism. The emphasis on enhancing national economic productivity by strict scientific divisions of labor, on applying science to the routines of daily life to make it more efficient, more healthy, and more sanitary, changed the meaning of citizenship in America. With the blessings of progressives, the federal government made its first major entrance into the private lives of its citizens—regulati ng industry, economy, and urban life—and in doing so, became a protector of the people from the tyranny of economic power rather than just political power. A citizen became an economic unit, and productivity became linked with patriotism. Women, it came to be argued, should get the vote and should enter the public sphere not to fulfill their duty as political citizens of the United States who needed representation on the grounds that it was consistent with American political ideology, but to become full economic citizens—more efficient producers and workers within their own sections of the public sphere. At the end of the 19th Century, the Seneca Falls approach still garnered recognition but was even then giving way to the new arguments for women’s rights.

Effects of Globalisation on Indian Society Essay

Indian Society is among the oldest in the world and varied and complex in its heritage. But about 200 years of colonial rule changed its socio-cultural process. India was turned into an appendage of the British empire. British colonial policy transformed its economy, society and polity. The British colonial authority was responsible for the introduction of the modern state in India. They surveyed the land, settled land revenues, created a modern bureaucracy, army, police, instituted law courts and helped in the codification of laws. The colonial administration developed communications, the railways, the postal system, telegraph, roads and the canal system. It introduced English language and took steps for the establishment of universities. The above changes set in motion a number of forces which had long-term and often adverse consequences for the Indian economy and society. These changes were not oriented towards causing balanced development and progress of the Indian society. They only served the imperial interests of the colonial authority. India which had a glorious past, had become one of the poorest countries when it freed itself from colonial bondage. In 1948-49 India’s national income was 86. 5 thousand million rupees. Which meant a per capita income of only 264 (rupees). This was one of the lowest in the world. India had a predominant agrarian economy. 72 percent of its total workforce was dependant upon agriculture. Organised industries accounted for two percent of the workforce. The colonial authority pursued policies which led to pouperisation of the peasants, who had reduced to the position of share-croppers, marginal tenants and landless agricultural labourers. At the dawn of independence India was economically dependant upon advanced countries. Its exports consisted of primary products while its imports consisted of manufactures from industrialised countries. It also showed a marked deficit in the balance of trade. The economy was characterised by a pronounced economic dualism. The economic structure was also intricately related to a society having features which seriously affected the growth and operation of new institutions. The country was typically characterised by a class structure in which power was highly concentrated in a small elite. This included, on the one hand, classes whose power was associated with the traditional sector and, on the other, newer classes whose power was associated with the growth of the modern sector. Their combined membership was very small in comparison to the mass of small cultivators, landless agricultural labourers, unskilled workers and unemployed or underemployed. Between the elite at the top and the masses at the bottom, there was a very small middle class consisting of pet businessmen, semi-skilled blue-collar workers and small property owners. These peculiarities had a bearing upon a new nation resharing itself in a post-colonial world. Further, social interactions in India were based on considerations of race, religion caste, community, language and region. After independence India experienced a politics of scarcity on account of the above factors. Political independence raised expectations of the masses. The nationalist elite, who had played in a key role in the freedom struggle, became the new power-elite They and their socio-cultural background set the goals of the new dispensation. Apart from economic development and social transformation achieving economic and political self-reliance was a new goal of the independent Indian state. The goal of integration of the country was also important to the ruling elite. Independent India adopted the Westminister model for sharing its political institutions. The parliamentary form of government with a federal state structure was the only alternative before the constitution-making forum. The modern elite wanted to reconstruct the social structure on modern foundations of law, individual merit and secular education. They therefore, favoured a transition from traditional rural economy to one based on scientifically planned industry and agriculture. To achieve this objective Community Development project and Five-year Plans were introduced. India thus became a welfare state. The objective of the Indian State being to correct the distorted nature of the economy and society, which had been its colonial inhavitance, the newly goals were : self-sustained growth, high rate of growth, equality, equity and justice and state and nation-building.

the warlords essays

the warlords essays In his book, The Warlords, AJP Taylor defines a warlord as "...a man of great, of unique, power dominating both the military and civil affairs of his country; a dictator whose power was unlimited and who made all vital decisions" (Taylor 16). Taylor is trying to portray Joseph Stalin, Denito Mussolini, Adolf Hilter, Winston Churchill, and President Roosevelt as warlords by his definition. He uses many examples of events during World War II that show how these men are dictators and can dominate military powers. I believe that the author is fairly successful in showing that these men are warlords; however, there are several instances where Taylor seems to contradict himself. First, his definition says a warlord must be a man of great power and control his military. In the case of Mussolini, Taylor tells how he was noted as being a "lazy man" and how he lied about the actual size of his army. Taylor also talks about how Mussolini only consisted of impression and how without Hitler he would have never become anything after his resignation of commander- in- chief. Also, Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt were not dictators of their countries and therefore only fit half of the author's definition. Taylor does a good job in general of proving that these five men are warlords, however he leaves a few loopholes for others to argue his theories. No one disputes that these men are leaders in their own way, but they do not all fit the authors exact definition of a warlord. This book was well written and well organized. By reading this book you not only learn about the lives and politics of these five men, but you also learn a lot about many different events in World War II. I feel like I came away from this book knowing much more than I did when I began reading it. It was easy to read and, as I already stated, very inte ...

Attribution Theory essays

Attribution Theory essays The purpose of this review was to discuss the development of attribution theory. Since there is no unifying theory of attribution, this review attempts to explain central ideas comprising the basic tenet that attribution theory describes how people make causal explanations about reality, as well as the behavioral and emotional consequences of those explanations. Attribution theory was developed over time from several social psychologists, including Fritz Heider, Edward Jones, Keith Davis, and Harold Kelley. Heider played a central role in defining attribution theory in 1958, in his book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. In 1965, Jones and Davis expanded attribution theory through their systematic hypothesis about the perception of intention in their essay From Acts to Dispositions. Harold Kelley tied together the theoretical foundation of attribution theory in his landmark paper Attribution Theory in Social Psychology in 1967. This paper will identify three key co ncepts comprising attribution theory. Attribution theory describes the processes of explaining events and behavior, and the behavioral and emotional consequences of those explanations. The theory developed within social psychology as a means of dealing with questions of social perception. One of the most influential persons involved in attribution theory, Harold Kelley, reported that attribution theory was significant because When the attributions are appropriate, the person undoubtedly fares better in his decisions and actions than he would in the absence of the causal analysis (Kelley, 1973). This theory has made an astounding impact on modern psychology; "Attribution theory came to rival cognitive dissonance as one of the most imperialistic theories in social psychology. Attribution theory was seen as relevant to the study of person perception, event perception, attitude change, the acquisition of self-knowledge, thera...