Industrial law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Industrial law - Essay Example It appears that the carrot and stick policy couched with a great deal of browbeating tactics used by the American business entities simply do not go down well with the powers that be in Britain, and for good reason. How can a nation with thousands of years of history out of which just a short while ago she ruled the waves draw lessons conclusively from a nation born out of Britain’s own bosom only few centuries ago notwithstanding the bloody conception? Nonetheless, Britain has good reason to approach and compare her performances with her staunchest ally. Just as in the case of every other issue, on a subject like trade unionism there is nothing so fulfilling as a comparison with the best, even if the lessons learnt turn out to be infeasible. (James J. Brudney) There is a strong universal feeling hitherto unexpressed, especially among business circles that the world could do without trade unions. It is felt that trade unionism, like the socialist form of governance, has been a failure. Britain’s tryst with collective bargaining has been particularly phlegmatic and uneventful. It is difficult to prove with any amount of conviction that something good has come out of trade unions. On the contrary, the identity of trade union has been riddled with anti-social activities, strikes, lockouts, go-slow tactics, union rivalries and even mayhem and murders. It may be for these reasons that nobody is really keen to be in the forefront when it comes to formations of trade unions in new corporations. Nonetheless, it must be granted that the presence of trade unions has had a transforming effect on society. Thanks to the principles of collective bargaining, there is more appreciation for the working class, better salaries and working conditions, better living standards, more purchasing power, and recognition and justice for the less privileged and the

Marketing analysis or external scanning Assignment

Marketing analysis or external scanning - Assignment Example The major customer groups within this industry include autistic children and children with behavioral health issues. The size of the target market is pretty big in Jeddah and overall in Saudi Arabia at present. The target market for this business includes children with problem of autism and those having behavioral disorder problems. The critical needs of this target market include friendly environment, continuous peer to peer relationship, and frequent involvement in social activities. These needs are not met usually for autistic children which paves the way for us to open a gym for them where they can exercise all what they need. The expected market share for this business covers a big portion of health industry as there is hardly any renowned gym working in Jeddah for autistic children. As far as the pricing issue is concerned, it will depend on the behavioral condition and learning potential of the children being admitted to the gym. For children who require intensive care and training, the level of pricing will be a bit higher than those who will require less supervision. There will also be discount for siblings and cousins of the first child admitted to the gym. The market share for the gym will be high because there is not well-renowned gym operating at present in Jeddah for autistic children. Our strengths will include interactive facilities, creative and friendly environment, and the only big gym operating in Jeddah. Weaknesses will include lack of funds for the business at the start and lack of experience. As far as the challenges for the idea of a gym for kids with Autism is concerned, some of them include increasing the number of children in order for the business to achieve success and the variety of ways to deal with children with autism and their behaviors. There do not appear any major barrier that can hinder

Role Of Climate In The Classic Maya Collapse History Essay

Role Of Climate In The Classic Maya Collapse History Essay In this paper, the impacts of climate change on the Maya will be examined. It is likely that a number of factors combined to produce the collapse for which the civilisation is well known. With this in mind, the extent to which climate itself played a role will be particularly looked into. Defining the Collapse Before the role of climate can be looked into, it first needs to be established what the Maya collapse actually was. Popular media has often portrayed the collapse as something that happened simultaneously across the Mayan region, resulting in the abrupt and complete destruction of the entire Mayan civilisation. However this was not the case. The collapse mainly refers to the drastic decline of the cities of the southern Maya Lowlands. Many of these cities had been extremely powerful in the Classic period (AD 250-900), the so called pinnacle of Mayan civilisation, and had dominated the entire Maya region (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 287). It is the fall of these city states that defines the Terminal Classic (AD 790-900), but this period also saw many sites, particularly in the north and east, continue to flourish and in some cases even grow, supporting large populations into the Postclassic (AD 900- c.1542) long after the collapse. Sharer and Traxler therefore define the collapse as a p rocess of transformation that saw the end of Classic states and the rise of new states that dominated the Postclassic period (2006: 503). Identifying the Collapse It has been seen that the collapse of Classic Maya sites was focussed within the southern Maya Lowlands, but what were the changes in the archaeological record that signal collapse in this region? A major factor suggesting collapse was the decrease in the number of carved stone stelae and altars dedicated over the course of the 9th century, with the last known dated stela having been erected at Tonina in AD 909. The cessation of erecting monuments varied between sites, with inscribed stelae ceasing at Dos Pilas as early as AD 760 and Tikal at AD 889, suggesting that the collapse was not a sudden, simultaneous event, but was an ongoing process that affected different cities at different times; although ultimately the outcome was the same (Chase and Chase 2006: 169). Drastic depopulation of the region is also identifiable. This can be seen in a decline of domestic activity in palaces and common houses alike. The cities of Tikal, Calakmul, Copan and Palenque, among others, had reached peak population in the Late Classic and so their subsequent decline is particularly noticeable (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 500). There have been various estimates as to the maximum population of the southern and central Lowlands during the Classic period, ranging from 3 to 14 million people, but it is seemingly agreed that this had dropped to around only 1 million by the start of the Postclassic. This suggests a depopulation rate in the range of 53-90%, a level unprecedented prior to European arrival in the New World (Gill 2000: 351). So although limited to the Maya Lowlands, the collapse was a significant event, leaving once powerful cities deserted within the space of 150 years. What made the Mayan civilisation different from others that suffered a drastic collapse was that it was not a single, unified society, but was instead a collection of individual city states and their hinterlands, each controlled by a king. This would seem to suggest that there must have been external pressures that, at the very least, triggered and compounded existing problems within these city states, rather than internal problems that somehow all resulted in collapse. So what had caused these once great cities to be abandoned? Causes of the Collapse Many different arguments have been put forward to explain the Maya collapse. In the past a single cause had been sought, and natural disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes were considered. It is now generally agreed however, that there was likely no single cause, but an interplay of factors (McNeil et al. 2010: 1017). For the purpose of this paper however I shall focus on drought and warfare, which are two of the most commonly debated theories. Drought Fluctuation in rainfall was common to the Maya area and there was precedent for drought, although evidence suggests that the Classic droughts lasted longer and were more intense than any previously experienced by the Maya (Gill et al. 2007). Lake sediment cores from Lake Chichancanab in the Eastern Yucatan Peninsula show that there was a period of drought lasting around 150-200 years, with three peak phases of severe drought within this. This is supported by evidence from marine sediments of the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela, which show that, in this particular region, the drought lasted from AD 760-930. Four periods of intense drought are identifiable from these samples, centring on the years AD760, 810, 860 and 910 (Gill et al. 2007). The correlation between the periods of severe drought and the collapse of Classic Maya civilisation in the Lowlands, surely suggests it had a critical impact on those polities, such as Tikal, Calakmul, Naranjo and Palenque, that were not we ll served by rivers. Lucero suggests that the Classic Maya elite based their power on the control of water. Many of the regional centres of the Maya Lowlands did not have access to natural water sources and relied on artificial reservoirs which were under the control of the rulers. As a result they were dependent on seasonal rainfall for water, and Maya royalty would have also used their special connections to the gods, specifically Chac the rain god, to guarantee enough water through rituals and ceremonies. It was upon this basis that Maya rulers exacted tribute and labour from their subjects (Lucero 2002). Decreasing rainfall and long term drought would have undermined the foundation on which the Mayan elite drew their power, resulting in political collapse. The diminishing power of the elite can be seen archaeologically through a reduction in the manufacture and distribution of prestige and ritual goods at many centres during the Terminal Classic (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 499-500). The production of p olychrome pottery and ornately carved items of jade, wood, bone and shell, was controlled by the elite and used to reinforce status (Demarest 2004: 213). The increasing absence of such items in the archaeological record therefore suggests rulers no longer had the same level of support from their subjects. Their power was waning, as also reflected in fewer dynastic stelae, used to legitimise power, and the end of monumental construction projects such as ball courts, temples and causeways. The decline of the elite and, as a result, centralised political organisation was a major feature of the Mayan collapse. It is Luceros argument that drought was the main reason behind this. It was only able to inflict such damaging change because water control was inherent to the institution of Kingship within Mayan society. Drought would have also had the obvious consequences of a lack of drinking water and severe decrease in agricultural production. Warfare Conversely it has also been suggested that rather than drought, it was endemic warfare and competition amongst the various city states that led to the weaker polities being overpowered, causing the breakdown of dynastic power in these defeated polities. The cities of the Petexbatun region of present day Guatemala, in particular, are argued to have collapsed while trapped in a state of siege and fortification warfare (Demarest et al. 1997). This constant state of war is believed to have destabilised the political and economic structures, resulting in political devolution and eventual failure in the early 9th century. Interestingly the Petexbatun region had good river access, making it unlikely that drought was a major factor in the collapse of this area (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 515-17). It is on this basis that Demarest disputes an ecological model, pointing out that political disintegration had already begun in the Petexbatun by the time drought occurred, the last inscription at the earliest known city to fall, Dos Pilas, dated to AD760 (Demarest cited in McKillop 2004: 99). Zooarchaeological evidence from this region also suggests there was no danger of famine, or nutritional stress through protein deficiency, in the Classic or Terminal Classic (Emery cited in Demarest 2006: 105). The violence prevalent in this region was seemingly independent of an environmental impetus. Common Ground? There is a convincing amount of evidence in support of each of both drought and warfare, suggesting that they both likely played some role. The nature of Maya society however, being a collection of city states, means that evidence of warfare in one region, for instance, does not necessarily mean that it can be inferred elsewhere. As mentioned, it was in the cities of the Petexbatun where evidence shows endemic violence caused the abandonment of the region. It has often been the mistake to imply that this then must surely have been the cause for collapse across the entire Maya lowlands, or at least present in a wider area, but the evidence does not support this. The same goes for drought. Although this may have been noticeable over much of the Maya lowlands, the affects were surely most closely felt by those cities without access to natural water sources and dependent on rainfall for agriculture. Instead the evidence appears to suggest that different regions likely had a different trigger cause or combination of causes (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 514). It seems hard to believe that such catastrophic events could have occurred within a similar timeframe, yet independently of each other, but have the same result. This does suggest however that Mayan civilisation had reached a point where it was extremely vulnerable to the slightest variation, with location playing a large part in deciding the factor that would tip a particular city over the edge, towards collapse. Manmade or Natural Occurrence? Drought appears to have played a relatively large, although joint, role in the collapse of the Classic Mayan civilisation. But was this environmental change anthropogenic or a natural occurrence? The answer to this relates closely to the argument over the level of deforestation carried out by the Maya. It has long been argued by many of those supporting the theory that drought was at least in part responsible for the Maya collapse, that the Maya themselves were to blame for the environmental degradation, due to deforestation. Shaw believes that the varying fate of the different city states during the Terminal Classic was a result of the level of deforestation in their particular region. She argues that, as deforestation raises temperatures and decreases evapotranspiration at a local or regional level only, the varying extent of tree removal explains the irregularity that the North and East of the Yucatan Peninsula continued to support a thriving population, while the heartland collapsed under severe drought (Shaw 2003). Studies into 20th century droughts in the United States and Mexico, however, show that over large areas they are hardly ever uniform, and so it is actually normal for certain areas to be affected more, or less at different times (Gill et al. 2007: 287). This provide s another explanation for the asymmetrical effects of drought in the Maya area, disputing the idea that deforestation was responsible for the irregularities. The Maya would have cleared sections of forest to make room for farming and agriculture. Wood was also used as domestic fuel, and was needed for the high temperature fires used to make lime mortar from limestone, a key component in Maya construction (Demarest 2004: 145). That the Maya made use of their forest environment is therefore known, but it is Shaws argument that they exploited it through conscious overuse (Shaw 2003). Diamond is another advocate of the deforestation model as a cause of collapse, arguing that deforestation would have made the soil much less fertile at a time when more agricultural land was needed, due to population pressure. He also agrees with Shaw that another of the consequences would have been manmade drought, and he uses the example of Copan, in present day Honduras, in particular (Diamond 2005: 168-70). That deforestation was widespread, and a human induced cause of drought, is a plausible theory, and in Copan, is supported by a core sample from Petapilla Swamp, a peat bog 4.5km north of the city itself (Rue 1987). Pollen retrieved from the core showed a much lower representation of tropical and deciduous forest trees than previously known, and less variation in the palynoflora. The cores showed no suggestion of significant climatic change from the palynological evidence, and led Rue to conclude that the vegetational changes were human induced through deforestation, with increased activity in the Late Classic (Rue 1987). New evidence has recently been put forward however, that disputes deforestation as the cause of environmental degradation. This new research particularly focuses on the polity of Copan where, as touched on above, it had previously been asserted that by AD800, not a single tree remained from the deciduous, or pine forest on the slope above the city (Abrams and Rue 1988, Diamond 2005: 169). McNeill et al. argue that Rues Petapilla Swamp core, upon which much of the deforestation theory has been based, only dates back to AD1010 with its oldest sediment, 100 years after Copans collapse (2010). Therefore it could not possibly have bearing on the Classic period population and their affect on the environment. The new data comes from another core from the same swamp, of which the earliest sediments this time date to 900-790 cal BC, providing data over a much longer range. It provided an interesting pollen profile, with the most pronounced deforestation apparent at the earliest stage of 900-7 90BC, with another later surge in the 5th century AD. Very much in contrast to the earlier core, it also shows an increase in arboreal pollen in the Late Classic, particularly that of pine. This data allowed McNeill et al. to surmise that: At the close of the citys Classic period, the hills above Copan were more densely forested than when the Maya first built their polity centre. (2010: 1021) This therefore suggests that rather than destroying their environment, the Maya were actually managing and cultivating it. Even though Copan was situated on a river, it received much less rainfall than other river centres at around 130 centimetres a year; so was likely at the mercy of changing rainfall patterns and drought. But if drought in this region was not caused by deforestation as the latest evidence suggests, then climate change was likely behind it. Palaeoclimatic records from North America, Europe and the Arctic indicate that the 9th and 10th centuries AD were as cold as during the Little Ice Age. Tree rings from the White Mountains of California show a steep decline in temperatures from AD790-950 and glacial advances in Alaska have been dated to AD700-900. In Sweden also, a number of glacial advances are known from this period, dated to AD800-910 (Gill 2000: 287-88, 385). Severe cold in the Northern Hemisphere can indicate a south-westward displacement of the North Atlantic High and a southward shift of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) which would have caused summer rains to fail in the Maya Lowlands. The failure of the ITCZ to move north in the summer at this time, is evidenced by a drop in sea surface salinity in a marine sediment core from the north-eastern Caribbean, coinciding with the period of collapse (AD 760-930) (Gill et al. 2007). As a result, all this evidence points to the climatic conditions as having been conducive of drought at the time of the Maya collapse. Avoidable Climate Change? It seems apparent that climate change was responsible for the drought that affected much of the Maya Lowlands. In some places this may have been exacerbated by deforestation, but on the whole it seems more likely that it was not anthropogenic. As discussed previously, drought was one of the main factors to influence and perhaps even trigger the Maya collapse in some regions. If the drought was not induced by human action or inaction, is it possible to learn from the mistakes of the Maya as Diamond asserts in his book? Diamond bases much, if not all, of his argument on the belief that the Maya had a choice, but their refusal to change led to their downfall. He more or less suggests that the Maya of Copan, which he uses as an example, stood back and watched as the last tree fell. But his argument is based on flawed evidence. This is easy to say with hindsight, in the light of recent publications, but he also ignored existing evidence, seemingly because it did not support his position. He comments: Maya kings sought to outdo each other with more and more impressive temples, covered with thicker and thicker plaster- reminiscent in turn of the extravagant conspicuous consumption by modern American CEOs. (Diamond 2005: 177) As previously mentioned, lime plaster required extreme heat to create and for this reason much wood was required in its production. If deforestation was causing problems for their society, which is now believed to be false in any case, then to continue to create vast quantities of plaster for nothing but aesthetic reasons would have been ignorant and stupid. This is seemingly what Diamond is suggesting, despite research published in 1996 that showed that sculptures dating to the Late Classic at Copan used much thinner layers of plaster than those of an earlier date. Implying the Maya were taking measures to prevent unnecessary tree loss (Fash and Fash 1996). Diamond focuses on the implications for our present society, which is a good reason for studying past collapse, but he seems to oversimplify the problems of the Maya. Under the heading The Maya Message he identifies the various strands that he believes led to the collapse, but in a way that makes it seem like they are a checklist to avoid if we do not want our present society to fail. He does not give the Maya any credit for having attempted to change their society in any way. But he would likely not have wished to do so; acknowledging that the Maya understood the precarious ecological situation they found themselves in and made attempts to counter this, but still failed, does not bode well for our current society, where short term benefit, at seemingly any cost, is most often preferred over long term solutions. Conclusion To come to the conclusion that the Maya did not shape their own downfall, in as much they did not create drought through deforestation, apparently leaves the almost equally unwelcoming alternative that borders on environmental determinism. This argument implies that the Lowlands were not conducive to complex and advanced civilisation; the Mayan cities were destined to collapse, it was an inevitable event that could only be put off not overcome. I feel there is, however, a middle ground between the two. I would agree that the drought was likely not the result of the Maya being irresponsible and overusing their natural resources. On the contrary it seems more likely that the Maya, at least at Copan, had become well adapted to their environment and were using it sustainably. They were at their peak florescence in the Classic period, when both environmental and climatic conditions were relatively constant. As a result of this stability though, they were increasingly becoming part of a ri gidity trap, mastering their environment of relatively low level, but predictable rainfall by growing water-efficient maize, and utilising reservoirs in order to build cities on fertile land far from a permanent water source. They had made themselves highly vulnerable to drought and in the terminal classic were faced with the worst droughts the region had seen for 7000 years. It was not the carrying capacity of the region however, but the nature of Mayan society that reduced their ability to change, as it must also be remembered that warfare was as important a cause of the collapse as drought in some regions. Although the Maya showed some adaptability at Copan in maintaining the forest, factors other than land use were much harder to change. Another society without a ruling system based on the control of water for example, would perhaps have fared better in the same circumstances, as drought would likely not have brought down their political system as easily. But this method of control was inherent to Mayan society, allowing for such things as monumental construction and the exacting of tribute. The Maya way of life had evolved to meet their circumstances and their environment, but in the end they had become fixed in these ways and were unable to modify their society enough when their situation changed. Even if the elite had foreseen drought and wished to change the basis of their power, it is unlikely they could have even done so without collapse remaining the end result; it was such a fundamental component of their society. It can therefore be seen that the Maya collapse was an extremely complex event that was the result of multiple factors, of which warfare and drought were dominant. In an attempt to focus more on the role of climate, I have neglected some of the other factors such as weakening economy through loss of trade and overpopulation among others, but have attempted to emphasize the multi faceted nature of the collapse in the hope of avoiding oversimplification. Climate change and the resulting drought played a large, albeit joint role in the collapse of the Lowland Classic Maya. A long period of relative stability had made the Maya culture fragile and inflexible, so that when faced by changes to this constancy, a precarious balance between the various elements of their society was revealed; ultimately they proved unsuccessful in maintaining this in a time of stress.

Academic Progress: Will No Child Be Left Behind? Essay -- essays paper

Academic Progress: Will No Child Be Left Behind? â€Å"These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America.†Ã¢â‚¬â€President George W. Bush (Executive Summary, 2001). â€Å"We like the bill, but this is a resource issue.†Ã¢â‚¬â€Peter McWalters, commissioner of education in Rhode Island (Coeyman, 2002). â€Å"No Child Left Behind? Everyone hates it. It’s a joke. Not obtainable.†Ã¢â‚¬â€teacher. The No Child Left Behind Act provides incentives for school districts to bring up academic progress, but instead the pressure involved may lead to poor-performing schools falsifying data, teaching to the test, or promoting unprepared students instead of truly improving student performance. Schools which do not achieve their Academic Yearly Progress for two sequential years will suffer loss of funding, corrective action, and may be closed. However, the only way to gauge academic progress on a nation-wide level is through standardized testing, which has serious limitations as a diagnostic tool. The concept of Academic Yearly Progress can lead to bizarre and arbitrary classifications of successful and failing. In additional, some of the corrective measures prescribed by NCLB may be inadequate. Rather than merely reaffirming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, President Bush oversaw a complete restructuring. This restructuring, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, decrees that every student will be at the academic level deemed proficient by the 2013-14 school year. To achieve this goal, it calls for strict academic accountability. States still have the responsibility of determining their own statewide assessment programs, but... ...same amount of time; the fallacy of the principal as sole instructional leader; the fallacy of setting standards on the basis of exceptions; and the fallacy of uniform standards for all children. The fallacy that all children can learn --at the same level and in the same amount of time.† (2002) And if they cannot learn, we can switch them around, from teacher to teacher, school to school. The Act is unfailingly optimistic. That optimism will destroy any effect that the reform could have. No Child Left Behind is an earnest attempt to fix a real problem- the academic achievement gap between the children of the haves and the children of the have-nots in this country. Unfortunately, the Act gives a rigid timetable and a list of penalties and punishments without giving beleaguered schools solid, concrete examples of how to implement these reforms.

McClellan

The first campaign of the Civil War was the first win for the Union and was under the command of George B. McClellan.   It was a minor battle but with this battle, under McClellan’s leadership successfully drove confederate troops out of the Kanawha Valley of western Virginia in May and June of 1861.   This was described in James McPherson’s book â€Å"Ordeal by Fire† (159).   McClellan’s victory gave the region a firm grip for the Union side and kept it from becoming in control of the confederates and eventually became West Virginia.   But the first major battle was a totally different story.This was the battle of Bull Run Creek and it was a disaster.   McClellan though helped this battle and became the savior, if even for the moment.   Because McClellan replaced McDowell who was the general at the time and this became the boost he needed to later become general in chief (Rowland, 1998 p. 86).   McClellan spent the fall and winter drilling h is troops and whipping them into shape.   He was known for his slow way of doing things and this made Lincoln very agitated.This was probably why the rumors began to fly about McClellan’s inability to be a general began and it was no secret that McClellan had such contempt for Lincoln.   On more than one occasion President Lincoln it was said that he couldn’t understand why McClellan was taking so long and insisted he go into the battle field.   Lincoln insisting he was being too slow ordered the army into action, McClellan’s slowness was mentioned several times in both required readings and was said to be cautious or meticulous.Both books I read, â€Å"Ordeal by Fire† and â€Å"George B. McClellan and Civil War History† were written on the Civil War.   But Thomas Rowland’s book core subject was on George B. McClellan.   James McPherson’s book was more of a broader book covering the war with the central theme on the Civil Wa r and only discussed McClellan’s generalship in a small section of the book.The other book dealt more exclusively on the man and his abilities.   In Rowland’s book he looked at the mental abilities of McClellan’s and coined him deranged and paranoiac.   This too was mentioned in McPherson’s book but only that he had possible mental problems and possibly other problems that affected his abilities of being a general.Some of the problems with McClellan that both books do address are his slowness and problems of exaggeration.   This exaggeration usually involved how many were in the opposing troops or in his troop’s inabilities to win a battle because of training time or supplies.   It is commonly accepted though that McClellan was considered a failure as a general, but Rowland still defends his generalship to the bitter end.There were several bad decisions made by McClellan during his service in the Civil War.   Union forces in the West had won some very important victories before McClellan could make a move to aid the fighting troops and this was a dark cloud over his leadership.   The successes around the edge of the confederacy did not help to relieve the frustration many were feeling at the inactivity or failure of the Union forces on the eastern front and this helped to reinforce the general attitude towards McClellan’s generalship.Lincoln, because of this frustration, relieved McClellan of his command and ordered him to take the offensive command at the head of the Army of the Potomac and forced McClellan to begin campaigning (McPherson, 1982 p. 211).   The overland route to Richmond was difficult so instead he moved his forces by water to the peninsula southeast of the confederate capital.   After landing at Fort Monroe, a Union post, McClellan began moving up the peninsula and in early April of 1862.   For months he remained at Yorktown choosing to besiege the enemy instead of attacking.This was another sign of his slowness and stagnation (Rowland, 1998 p. 107).   Then after the fall of Yorktown he pushed ahead to a point twenty miles from Richmond and waited for troops he had expected Lincoln would send, but that didn’t happen because Lincoln believed that the troops should instead be sent to defend Washington instead.   This infuriated McClellan.Many believe that if McClellan had moved more swiftly and decisively he probably would have captured Richmond with the forces he had available.   But with a combination of faulty intelligence reports and his own natural caution he failed.   He believed that he was outnumbered by the opposing troops and this was wrong (McPherson, 1982 p. 234).   It was by the end of May that the Confederates learned that McClellan’s army was divided on each side of the Chickahominy River and decided to attack.This battle named Seven Pines was where McClellan was barely able to hold his ground.   Finally Corps from the othe r side of the river crossed and saved his butt.   It was during this battle that General Lee took command of the confederate army.   General Lee at the end of June decided to put an all out effort to expel McClellan from his position on the outskirts of Richmond.   In a series of battles that lasted seven days McClellan warded off Lee’s final assaults at Malvera hill and decided to retreat down the peninsula to a more secure point.   In doing this it convinced Lincoln that the peninsula campaign was a wasted battle (Rowland, 1998 p. 66-67).It was on July 11th, 1862 that Lincoln appointed General Henry W. Halleck who had been in command in the western theater, to be the new general in chief.   Halleck was ordered by Lincoln to command McClellan to withdrawal his army from the peninsula and join forces under General Pope that was preparing to move on Richmond by the overland route.   Again McClellan was slow in responding and the confederates got to Pope before he d id.   Pope was badly beaten before McClellan could arrive.   This pissed Lincoln off and McClellan was ordered back to Washington where he was stripped of his command, but later out of desperation he was reappointed to the head of the army of the Potomac (McPherson, 1982 p. 255-260).Meanwhile Lee and his troops went on to invade Maryland in hopes of isolating Washington from the rest of the North.   Soon McClellan caught up with him near Sharpsburg and this became the bloodiest one day battle of the Civil War.   At Antietam on September 17th almost five thousand solders were killed on both sides and another eighteen thousand were wounded.The battle ended in a draw forcing Lee to withdraw south of the Potomac River to protect his low supplies.   McClellan again was slow in his pursuit of the general and Lincoln blamed him for letting the enemy escape (Rowland, 1998 p.176).   This lead to Lincoln believing he needed a stronger general because McClellan was so slow that he appointed Ambrose B. Burnside as commander of the Army of the Potomac.   A mistake on Lincolns part because Rowland believed he was â€Å"replacing someone slow with someone that was considered dense† (Rowland, 1998 p. 223).In Rowland’s book he argues the war was divided with each having demands on the commanders that fought the battles.   In Rowland’s book it depicts McClellan as overly cautious, proud, psychologically impaired, yet having an aristocratic air about him.   This aristocratic officer was very apt at fighting very formidable commanders such as Lee and Jackson.   With the battle of Seven Pines and Antietam campaign he had to face what Rowland says were very tough troops that gave McClellan every reason for caution.   Other reasons for McClellan’s failures were the troops he was given.   Thrown together hastily and unprepared.   He said the nation was expecting quick wins and fast victories that just didn’t happen.   Thi s too is why McClellan’s slowness was brought up so many times in each book.Sources used to write the books included historical documents, letters and diaries, but one thing that Rowland differs from McPherson is that he gives more weight to writings by other professionals that are considered quite controversial on the subject.   Rowland used those sources for the basis of his thesis, which I believe gives a little less credibility to his work.   McPherson on the other hand used a large amount of historically accurate documents, letters and diaries.   His use of reference and his bibliography was quite impressive.   In Rowland’s book he wrote more of feelings than on giving facts.I know Civil War history relies heavily on personal letters and notes, but I think taking these documents for face value is what McPherson did instead of adding his own personal beliefs.   Letters between McClellan and his wife were used a lot in Rowland’s book and this is fin e but letters like these, to a wife during war, really aren’t the best use for facts.   I think that at times of war many of the letters to family and friends leave much details out so they would not be worried about their family members so much of the writings need to be taken with a grain of salt.If asked which book I would put more stock into it would be McPherson’s book.   It dealt more with black and white facts and was more of a historically timetabled book.   After seeing all the research he had put into his book he won hands down.   He did an excellent job of sifting through the tons of papers and historical documents to write a very clear and interesting book on the Civil War.Both authors agree that McClellan wasn’t the best general nor do they believe he was the worst.   McPherson mentioned others that were just as bad or worst.   McPherson did mention something that Rowland failed to mention and that was McClellan’s problem with chr onic exaggeration (McPherson, 1982 p. 212).   This was quite a problem that he had affecting his abilities and image as a general.   I agree with Roland that he wanted to give a more balanced look at the man General George B. McClellan and I think he did an excellent job in giving him overdue recognition for some of his achievements.He gave excellent reasons as to why he thought McClellan did what he did and thought he did a good job.   â€Å"McClellan’s strategy, though reflective of the unrealistic war aims of the years 1861-1862 was cogent, reasoned, and consistent with conventional military wisdom and his personal views of the nature of the conflict.   It was not hallucinatory or deranged; it mirrored the views of the administration and of a sizeable, if not shrinking, majority† (Rowland, 1998 p. 237).   Rowland goes on to say that because McClellan didn’t have great or a large amount of wins is the only reason he was given a bad reputation and was n’t credited with any of his accomplishments.Reference:McPherson, J.M. (1982).   Ordeal by fire: The Civil War and reconstruction. New York: Knopf.Rowland, T.J. (1998).   George B. McClellan and Civil War history: In the shadow of Grant and Sherman.   Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Anatomy: Oxytocin

Anatomy Report: OXYTOCIN Name: Yeqin Yan Period: first period Oxytocin Oxytocin: from the Greek â€Å"oxy†, meaning â€Å"quick,† and tokos, meaning â€Å"childbirth†. History: Oxytocin was discovered in 1909 when Sir Henry H. Dale found that an extract from the human posterior pituitary gland contracted the uterus of a pregnant cat.Definition: a hypothalamic hormone stored in the posterior pituitary, which has uterine-contracting and milk-releasing actions; it may also be prepared synthetically or obtained from the posterior pituitary of domestic animals; used to induce active labor, increase the force of contractions in labor, contract uterine muscle after delivery of the placenta, control postpartum hemorrhage, and stimulate milk ejection. Peripheral (hormonal) actions: 1. Letdown reflex 2. Uterine contraction 3. Social behavior and wound healing 4.Modulation of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity 5. Autism 6. Increasing trust and reducing fear 7. Aff ecting generosity by increasing empathy during perspective taking 8. Affecting Cognitive function Actions within the brain: 1. a Function: 1. Stimulates contractions of the smooth muscle tissue in the wall of the uterus during childbirth. 2. Oxytocin stimulates uterine contraction. 3. Contract the vagina during orgasm. Synthesis: In the hypothalamus, oxytocin is made in magnocellular neurosecretory cells of the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei. Storage:It is stored in Herring bodies at the axon terminals in the posterior pituitary. Release: It is then released into the blood from the posterior lobe (neurohypophysis) of the pituitary gland. Where can we find it: Outside the brain, oxytocin-containing cells have been identified in several diverse tissues, including the corpus luteum, the interstitial cells of Leydig, the retina, the adrenal medulla, the placenta, the thymus and the pancreas. Drug forms: Synthetic oxytocin is sold as proprietary medication under the trade names Pi tocin and Syntocinon, and as generic oxytocin.