Rain In The City Of Mahtomedi Essays - Observational Astronomy

Rain In The City Of Mahtomedi The bright and sunny sky hid the fact that a storm was quickly approaching the city of Mahtomedi. The soft, warm wind was brushing against the merry faces of the residents. Children are playing basketball, teenagers are driving their cars and listening to deafening music. The calm pace of the waves attracted many boaters to the clear water. Even the gardeners were out on this beautiful day. Everyone was completely oblivious to the coming terror. The wind began to swirl and blew freezing air onto the town. Dark clouds stormed into the sky, churning and twisting with astonishing speed. The basketball hoop moved back and forth, being pushed by y the incredible strength of the wind. Flower pedals and leaves flew into the sky spinning at a dizzying rate. Cars were abandoned as fear struck teenagers ran into the ditch for shelter from the flying debris. Whitecaps crashed on the docks and shorelines, tearing up planks of wood and swirling into whirlpools. Then, one of the most powerful forc es on the face of the earth reached down with its mighty winds, shredding buildings and trees in seconds. After devouring home after home, it receded as if taunting its prey and showing the people that it is completely unpredictable. And then, as suddenly as it began, the clouds move on. Bringing their destruction with them. The waves become calm and reflect the bright sun shining through the clear sky. Children come out and begin to play. The gardeners return to their plants, clearing up the remaining debris. Teenagers get out of the ditch and run back to their cars, thrilled that they have a new story to tell. Slowly and gradually people return to their activities and life goes on. Creative Writing

Han to Roman comparison essays

Han to Roman comparison essays Though on the surface, the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty seem very different, they have a surprising number of similarities. Their differences are in a broad range of categories. First of all the Hans were for the most part ethnically homogeneous, whereas the Roman Empire extremely heterogeneous in makeup. The Hans had an emperor who had theoretically absolute power, but in reality was in great check by high officials and Imperial families. In contrast, the Roman Empire consisted of a Republic, which for the most part would be considered an oligarchy by todays standards. Later in its life, Rome was changed to an empire by Octavian. The Hans deemed their leader as the Son of Heaven, but the Romans had only a small percentage, mostly in Egypt, where the Emperor was worshiped as Pharaoh, or son-of-god. A great and successful effort in China was put into the creation of complex irrigation systems which resulted in many agricultural advances for the Chinese. However, no real effort was put forth in Rome to bring about any real irrigation in their empire. The Hans had a system of land division with landl ords and tenants, whereas Rome simply brought in slaves from their conquered lands. In the Han Dynasty, a great prejudice was put against merchants, whereas in Rome, merchants were simply thought as a second-rate occupation. Han and Roman connections can be seen when you look deeper into each society. Both the Chinese and Romans were constantly invaded by northern invaders. Each set up a series of walls to keep out these invaders. Neither civilization set up any sort of line of succession, causing short scuffles over transitions of power. Each of the Empires strangely enough covered approximately the same amount of land, the Hans: 1.5 million square miles; and the Romans: 1.7 million square miles. Each society had a great military to protect their great empires. Though the Romans followed Christianity fo...

Employment Relations Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Employment Relations - Assignment Example Employment relations theories The study of employment relations has led to several theory perspectives that have helped explain the nature of employment relations. The following is some of the perspectives draw. The first is Unitarianism, a perspective based on workplace conflicts between the employees and the manager. This theory explains that conflicts at the workplace are inevitable, and they should be seen as a unifier and not a dissolvent (Lloyd and Newell, 2001: 357). In the organization, the employee carries the same interest as the manager and that is to see the organization thrive. In case of disagreement the two parties agree to disagree for the benefit of the organization. The main cause for conflicts according to Bryson (2005: 1111) is a clash of personality, promotion, lack of communication skills and dissidents deviation. This can be easily solved by the management through finding the problem and solving it. In Taylor’s scientific management theory (1974:44) he s tates that employees have limited ambitions and tend to act immature and avoid their responsibilities whenever they can. Companies that choose to subscribe to Taylor’s theory set clear roles and directives on assignments undertaken at work. The approach here gives management an upper hand because it has great authority on the workers (Taylor: 1974: 47). The other theory applicable in this case is the human relations theory where workers are viewed as individuals who are self motivated and have a sense of self-fulfillment in the organization. In this theory workers are granted the autonomy to operate in a manner that they feel the job satisfaction (Gennard and Judge, 2005: 76). Organizations that adopt this approach create a self-governing environment and allow employees to govern themselves. The second set of assumption is pluralism and unlike Unitarianism pluralism believes that work conflict is necessary and healthy for the organization. Businesses are made up of different complex groups with each group carrying different interests (Daniel, 2006: 36). The management and employees are considered been in different groups here. The assumption here is that there different forms of authority making conflict inevitable. The conflict is taken as a positive factor because it is this situation that sheds light on the employee’s grievances. Conflict also forces management to come up with innovative ways to handle the disagreements. Pluralists according to Daniel (2006: 36) agree with the two competing sides because it is believed to result to amicable solutions. This is because management not only comes up with conflict solutions but also fair solutions that keep their power balanced. Dunlop’s system theory is one of the greatest approaches used by most pluralists (Hollishead et al., 2003: 19). This theory states that employment relations are made up of a wide sub-system that determines how parties involved in the work environment can keep out con flicts at the workplace. There are four elements according to Hollishead et al. (2003: 23) that are important factors in employment relations, and that are the actors, the environment, set rules and ideologies that are binding. Another theory recently drawn is the strategic choice theory