War and Peace.

The greatest problems that have faced men throughout his history have been the problems of war and peace.

In the XIX century and before war was quite common. It did not touch the majority of nations and was fought by professional and semi-professional armies. War was not total war. It was fought within limited territories.

However, the XX century brought about a profound change in the character of war and its consequences. The most important event in this was, perhaps, the First World War, which lasted from 1914 till 1918, The World War I was perceived to be just the war to teach the Russians a lesson. But that war became total war with the most horrendous loss of life, the World War I destroyed the creation of the generation. The number of talented people who were killed during that war was uncountable.

The Second World War is known in this country as the Great Patriotic War. WWII showed how war could affect total nations. That war was waged by Hitler against (Hitler waged that war against) complete populations. All of us know of the famous Siege of Leningrad, which people held out against horrendous conditions and total bombing for many, many months. There was also that terrible Blitzkrieg in which Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad and hundreds of other cities and towns were continuously bombed. WWII was total war against populations and it made Governments and people very (unwilling) reluctant to embark on war. Therefore, we have to struggle for peace and how to keep the peace.

After the WWI there were five great Powers in the world: the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, the USA and Germany. It was (Sell???)(decided) that to keep the peace in the world, it was necessary to set up a World Organization.

Therefore the League of Nations was set up. However, its life was not very long. It existed from 1919 to 1939. And the advent of the WWII marked its death knell because what it had been set up for, to avoid another bloody WW, it failed to do. After the WWII there was no longer great powers, there were only two superpowers: the SU and the USA.

And what happened next was the most terrible act for the civilization of the Earth; it was the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans, which ushered in the nuclear age with the possibility of the destruction of the whole planet at the use of “the press of a button”. It caused a great split between the two superpowers. Besides the two superpowers had ideologies, which were completely opposed to each other and that, meant that there could be no dialogue, no compromise between the USS and the USA, though the people of the world were eager to avoid war at all costs.

However, peace did not mean it was for all the nations, as the world knows Stalin and his killing of fifty million of the Russian people waging a war against his own population. Thus, in peacetime we have the problem of Tyrants and dictators who have control over almost all the people. The two greatest tyrants of history were Hitler and Stalin.

One more problems for us now are to avoid nuclear war. Still we have many trouble spots in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Chechnya. The Soviet Union had problems in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and also Afghanistan and for the US there were problems in South America (in such countries as Nicaragua, Salvatore, Mexico, Brazil, etc).

Now the two superpowers are talking more freely. The reasons for that are, perhaps, the facts that they have both been hurt by their interference in other countries and bloody wars, which affected their prestige. Vietnam was a complete disaster for the American policy and Afghanistan proved to be the same disaster for the Soviet Union.

 

War and Peace.

The twentieth century has marked a clear watershed not only in mankind's social history but in its very destiny.

The outgoing century is different from those that preceded it in that, for the first time ever, mankind cannot regard itself as immortal, for it has become aware that its dominion over nature has limits and may even threaten its own survival.

Even if nuclear war can be avoided, the threat to mankind will remain, for the Earth may one day no longer have the capacity to bear the burden of human activity.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the historic form of mankind's existence that produced modern civilization, with all its seemingly boundless possibilities and comforts, has also engendered a multitude of problems that need to be addressed without delay.

Solutions can, in principle, be found. The twentieth century has taught people many lessons. The emerging social, economic, political and information interconnectedness of all parts of the world community is objectively preparing the ground for joint efforts that could avert the threat of a "creeping catastrophe" and solve global problems on a planetary level. There is, after all, no other way to succeed.

In that sense, the twentieth century can be said to be the beginning of a transition to a new era; for mankind, the end of this century is a crucial fork in the road, a time to respond to the challenges of the future. Should we swim with the flow, or can we harness the available knowledge and experience, can we manage the processes of globalization and identify appropriate responses?

Our initial hypothesis is that the survival and development of mankind is increasingly dependent on its ability to effect a profound spiritual reformation, to be followed by a dramatic reordering of the social, economic and cultural patterns of its development. The Project is, in fact, an attempt to verify this hypothesis.

Its goal is to search for answers, to obtain new "cautionary knowledge," and to identify a humanist alternative through the study of various scenarios of development. This work will pursue several avenues, exploriing philosophical, socio-cultural, socio-environmental, economic, political, and global security problems. A sub-project on "Russia in the Emerging Global System" will be an organic part of the proposed study.

The Project will seek wide-ranging cooperation with other groups of researchers and with national and international centers that work on similar issues and are suggesting their own ideas, concepts, and theories.

The Project aims to be a contribution to the debate developing around the world on the problems of globalization and mankind's prospects in the twenty-first century. Its central assumption is the need to preserve a universal human perspective, to prove its viability in new circumstances. All sub-projects proceed from the belief in the possibility of a "democratic globalism" - a unity of the world based on cooperation, not on force and hegemony.

While discussing the new Russian-Chechen war, fearing losses, feeling sorry for our soldiers, and just a little for the Chechens sometimes, we completely forget the most important thing-what can bring Russia victory in Chechnya and how it all can end.

Any victory in Chechnya can be only temporary. We cannot exterminate the Chechens or drive them out of Chechnya and replace them with Russians, as Stalin did-we are weaker now (and maybe even kinder) and the United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, NATO and governments and public opinion in the West would not allow it.

After what Russia has done for the last five years, is doing now and plans to do in the near future, it will be impossible to integrate the populace of Chechnya into Russian society. It is much easier to image the extermination of the majority of the Chechen populace than fantastical democratic elections for the Russian Duma and Federation Council on Chechen territory.

The most that can be achieved, after the killing of many, many Chechens and heavy losses on our side, is the establishment of long term military occupation, which will unavoidably lead to significant deformation of Russian democratic and legal institutions and the transformation of Russia into a criminalized police state to an even great extent than today.

Even at that price, it will be possible to "calm" Chechnya only for a while. Today's Chechen youths and future generations of Chechens will have no illusions that peace; compromise and agreement are possible with Russia. Probably there are already no doubts about that among those currently in power in Chechnya, or among the commanders and fighters in the Chechen armed groups, who see that the Agreement on Peace and the Principle of Peaceful Interrelation signed by the presidents of Russia and Chechnya on May 12, 1997, has today simply been "forgotten" by Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, and by all Russian politicians from Zyuganov to Kirienko and by Russian journalists. This makes terrorism in Russia by Chechens and international Muslim fundamentalists and a new Chechen uprising inescapable in the future. Therefore, the subjugation of Chechnya is not needful for Russian society or the Russian state.

The solution of the Chechen problem is not so much a problem for Chechen society as it is for Russian society. The Chechnya with a weak and, in the eyes of the Chechen populace, illegitimate "occupational" power, the Chechnya seething to throw terrorist groups off its territory, the Chechnya perpetually ready to revolt is too valuable to the Kremlin and the present prime minister for them to let it go. It is just that Chechnya that the Kremlin and present prime minister need so that they can talk about defending Russia from Chechen terrorists and manipulate public opinion and draw attention away from the corruption scandals in the highest echelons, manipulate the budget, play leading roles in the next presidential election, and so on. Therefore, the current Russian authorities do not allow Chechnya peace or let an orderly and legitimate state form there.

For the current Russian authorities, it is much more profitable to start a war in Chechnya, impose semi-military law, maintain an occupational force there and hunt down terrorists in Russian cities than it is to help Aslan Maskhadov and the Chechen people stop the "slave trade" in Chechnya, to set up a legal authority acceptable to both the Chechen and Russian inhabitants of Chechnya, to put an end to terrorist raids and eliminate the terrorist groups of Basaev, Khattab and others (which Aslan Maskhadov and the Chechens who support him would be fully capable of doing with the support of Russia), restore the completely destroyed material conditions of life there, the health care system, education, etc.

The perverse, at first glance, desire of the Russian president, the present prime minister and the military leadership for a military victory and the presence within Russia of a Chechnya hungering for freedom is, unfortunately, completely natural. Such authorities as we have now require a Chechnya in unrest. And all of us-the people of Russia and the people of Chechnya-are being held hostage to the present Russian authorities and to each other.

Essay on

World War 2

     War is one of the most tragic things in our world today.  It is even sadder that usually it comes around at least once in our lifetime.  In the 20th century alone we have already had two huge wars.  These wars were call the World Wars simply because they involved most of the big countries of the world.  Many people have died in these wars, especially the Second World War.  That is my focus for this essay.

               The leader of Germany at the time of WW2 and the person who most think started WW2 was a man named Adolf Hitler.  Adolf Hitler was born in Austria.  By the time that World War 1 started in 1914, he was living in Germany.  He served well in the German Army and for that he earned a medal for bravery.  At the end of the war Hitler decided to take up politics.  By 1921 he was already the founding

leader of the Nazi party.  Hitler was an incredibly racist man and he had a great hate for Jews.  By 1933, Hitler gained political power by winning the election.  Soon after he made himself absolute dictator, calling himself the Fuhrer which means "Leader".  By the end of the 30's he was already sending Jews off too concentration camps to meet a horrible death.

     I believe that Hitler was one of the greatest causes of World War 2.  Although there are many other reasons, he was definitely one of them.  Another reason was the Treaty of Versailles.  This was the treaty that was signed at the end of World War 1.  This treaty outlined the rules that Germany must follow because of their defeat by Britain and France.  Many Germans were angered by the treaty, for most of the rules in the treaty were unfair and Germany lost a great amount of wealth.  One of the cruelest reasons for the war was Hitler's racist hate for Jews.  He would send them off in cattle cars to places called concentration camps were they would be slaughtered by the thousands.

     World War 2 was huge and involved a lot of countries.  There were thousands of battlefronts and warsites.  The two main battlefronts were the battle front between Britain and Germany and the battlefront between the Japanese and the Americans.  These battlefronts were split up into smaller battlefronts even still.  Many lives were lost in the air, on land and in the sea.  Some of the most notable battles were: The Battle of Britain, The Battle of Midway and The Battle of the Atlantic.

     Since the US and Canada were at war with the Japanese, Japanese Canadians were treated very poorly.  The government had decided that all or most Japanese Canadians, even if they were born in Canada had either go home or go and live in one of the camps. These camps were made to keep all the Japanese Canadians together in one location.  But the fact was that these camps were very dirty and not fair treatment.  Also, the government took away all Japanese possessions and without the Japanese knowing, they were auctioned off at a fraction of their original value!  This treatment went on for all of World War 2 and Japanese Canadians were not treaty fairly for many years after.  Just recently the government of Canada has decided to pay compensation for their losses but most agree that it doesn't even come close to what they lost.

     One of the greatest outcomes of the war was the great world power shift.  For more than a century Great Britain had been the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.  But they used up too many resources in the wars and their status greatly decreased.  One person even wrote that it is not Great Britain any more... it is just Britain.  People all over the world suffered through this war.  Hundreds of

thousands of people died.  All for the sake of their countries.  And you know what?  No one actually gained anything from it. The fact is that all of the countries (excluding the US) lost much, much more than what they gained.  Britain lost their power, France lost lives and land, Germany lost everything and

Japan lost thousands of civilians in their suicidal attacks called Kamikazes.

    In my opinion the war was a total waste.  Although some people will tell you that we fought and gained the peace that we have today and have had for almost fifty years.  People fought for 5 years and lost more than 50 billion dollars.  Do think it was worth it?  Now, maybe if governments use the past as a guide to the future we won't have to fight such a bloody battle ever again. 

 Especially with nuclear weapons so easily obtainable.

Are we civilized?

     We are starting to witness the beginning of a new era. It is full of information and technology, and it will decide how the future is going to be. But despite all our new inventions and ideas that show us how we're better off than the generations before us, have we grown in any other ways? Does being civilized only mean to become more advanced technologically, or does it apply to our moral foundation?

     It is very obvious that society has developed a lot in learning and technology. Today, we have inventions such as the stealth fighter, the home computer and nuclear powered power plants and naval vessels. Things that were imagined many years back have now become today's reality. Single machines now hold the jobs that used to take hundreds of men to accomplish by hand so in this sense, we have become more civilized.

     On the other hand, not all of the inventions that have been developed from the technology world are used to do good deeds. Our great society has allowed the production of many weapons whose sole intention is to create mass destruction and to kill large amounts of life. Many people now live in constant fear of the use of these weapons, while others sit back and enjoy them for protection. We still have as many wars as we did in the past, but now the new technology used in them helps bring about more human casualties. An example of this would be Operation Desert Storm. I was a 23-year-old man, sent off to fight for the liberation of Kuwait and to kick the crap out of a bully named Saddam Hussein. I was the crewchief on an UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division from Ft. Hood, TX. From the time the air war started to the 100 hours of hell we threw at the Iraqi Army, it was never more evident the role that technology played in decimating an enemy and b!

reaking his will to win and survive. The pictures that my young eyes saw will forever be burned into memory. Technology was a teacher of pain and suffering, but it was also a savior in helping bring home the lives of many young men who might of not come back in previous wars.

     Besides the wars, society really has yet to understand other people. Prejudice is alive and burning in the hearts of many throughout our society. Many hate groups are still around today, as they were hundreds of years ago, and many new groups are starting to form and become active. Oklahoma City felt the wrath of some very passionate people who were trying to avenge the loss of comrades to the Federal Government. Many innocent people were killed, and it all boils down to beliefs and ideas. Racism still has its hand around the throats of many in our society as well. It seems that some of the worst racists in our society are the ones who say they're not racist, but on the inside they really are. These are the people who say they're not racist, but they don't hire the East Indian employee who was the most qualified of the candidates. They coach the all white basketball team. They fight over the red and blue colors of bandannas worn around their heads. The worst part is, it d!

oesn't even phase them when they are doing it. In the past when our country was just starting to be formed, there were many prejudices just because people were different. Now over a century later, people haven't changed much, which makes me wonder if we really have become civilized yet.

     Democracy is also something that has played a big part in our journey to become civilized. A democracy in my words is where the people who choose to live under it run the government. And to have a true democracy, everyone must vote! People vote to exercise their democratic rights. If only 70% vote, then 70% control 100% of the government. Voting without adequate understanding and choosing candidates for the wrong reasons are symptoms of voting for the sake of voting and not taking an active interest in how our country is run. Instead of making an effort to understand issues and party fundamentals, too many ignorant people actually base their decisions on what the candidates say. The result is that everybody feels "burned" by the government, never realizing that he or she could have tipped the election simply by paying attention. Another problem with our vision of democracy is the structure and size of it. It seems everybody is always trying to help somebody get something !

for nothing. This just creates class envy and finger pointing. I personally believe the government's goal is to keep us divided as a country so we will fight amongst ourselves rather than pay attention to what's going on. So, is this civilized? I think not.

     Technically though, if you want to look at it really hard, we have become a civilized society. We can now travel across the country in a few hours or send someone an email. Most people believe that to become civilized you need to create new inventions and spend lots of money on social programs, making most people think that they are becoming better off and are more civilized. But our nature has not become more civilized. There are still wars, hatred, and acts of violence. Maybe it is more important to grow in this area than the other is. So in reality, we're not as civilized as we think we are.    

Decision Making

                    Any decision affecting people has ethical ramifications and virtually all important decisions reflect the decision-maker’s mindfulness and resolution to ethical behavior. This is why it is important to know for yourself how you go about making ethical decisions, or decisions of any kind. Finding out how one goes about making decisions can be a rather hard task as I found out while I was researching my mind to ‘decide’ exactly how I do go about making the decisions I make. The first thing I decided was that most of the decisions I make in my life are made with much thought about anything that might be affected by the decision. The most important thing, to me, is to make a decision and have reasons. I have to know why one choice is better than another. I feel compelled to look at every angle to assess what will be the outcome. I, personally, have a hard time making ‘spur-of-the-moment’ decisions especially if it involves something rather important to me. Many things go through my mind and trust in my practical intuition (notice I didn’t say ‘blind’ intuition) also plays an important part. I make decisions based on different things depending on what kind of decision I am having to make, but there is always one ultimate source for my decision making that supersedes all other ‘sub-categories’ that influence my decision making, and that does not change, regardless of the situation ­ and that is God. 

                    To me, God is the supreme ethical teacher and giver of wisdom, and if this is true then when searching for wisdom, why shouldn’t I look to the originator of wisdom. God is my number one influence in any decision that I make. My love for Him and faith in His power causes me to adhere to His will and actively search out the text of the Bible in order to learn more about the way He wants me to live and the things He wants me to have in my heart and in my mind as a guide for myself when making decisions. It is through this searching that I have discovered which ethical principles are important to me and how to adopt them as my own. 

                    One does not have to be a Christian to have ‘values’. Everyone has a primary source from which they draw to make decisions and it is often their values. The important thing is how or where you obtained your values. Are they yours or did someone else just pass them down to you. I have values, but the values I hold in my heart are not merely of tradition passed down to me, but spring from a diligent study of the Bible, which again comes from my love of the Father (which by-the-way, exists because of His great love for me). So, in this light, for me as a Christian or a non-Christian, values provide the very motivation for decision-making in the first place. I therefore decide to make decisions for myself because I want my life to adhere to the values that encompass my heart. I want to live my life constantly aware of the presence of God, and therefore, train my thoughts to become value-focused, and since the values in my heart are an extension of the Father, then I ought always to ask myself “What have I done that is as God wills and what have I left undone of that which He does not will?”. 

                    Another word that has a similar connotation as the values that I am discussing is virtues. Virtues are ideal character traits that people should incorporate into their lives such as: honesty, loyalty, respect, etc. For myself, this also is primarily obtained from my study of the Bible. I need to address the fact that in growing up in a family that held strongly to the values or virtues it was taught by their parents, that it is, in fact, nearly impossible not to be influenced by these things that were taught in the family, whether they were bad or good, and say that all values and virtues are entirely my own and have originated within me. That just is not valid, because a person does hold on to some of the things that were taught no matter how he or she feels about it, but if the virtues can stand next to God 

then there is no reason why a person shouldn’t keep in his heart that which was taught to him merely for the sake of “coming up with your own values’. The important thing is not ‘coming up with your own’ values/virtues, etc., it is the weeding out, picking and choosing, those values and virtues you will keep for your own life, accepting some and discarding others, all in an effort to make them your own, and weighing all against the ultimate source, the Bible. 

                    How does a person do this? Good question. First, you must ask yourself many questions, two of which I found to be the most important in my own opinion: 1) What does the scripture obviously teach about the subject? What does it blatantly come right out and say? 2) What does the Bible suggest about the subject? Through stories and examples of Jesus and the disciples, etc., what can you correctly decipher? (Correctly is the key word here). Once you have answered these two questions there are others you may want to ask yourself to get more specific. Generally, questions about yourself would be good, such as: 1) Does it violate my conscience? Because of your belief in God you seek to have your conscience framed by Him. (Obviously the conscience question is no good if you have not been careful how your conscience was formed or if your conscience has been ‘seared’.) 2) Is there an obvious primary duty, and if so, what is it? 3) How will it affect mothers? There are many more good questions, it is just a matter of finding out what is important to you and checking your actions to make sure that they coincide with these things. For example, if Jesus is an important figure in your life, 

ask yourself, ‘What would Jesus do?’. 

                    So, as a result of all this, what are the virtues/values I have adopted? The first is love of God, which I already discussed. It is the first and greatest commandment given in the Bible and therefore is my first and greatest virtue. 

                    The next is love or compassion, and devotion to others. Why? Because God gave us the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves as the second greatest commandment and as a foundation in order to win others. This love for others is the place we have to begin if we are to be true Christians because all commandments of Christ depend on this one. Not only are we commanded to love others, but we are given the example of Christ in the New Testament, who healed and fed and offered living water to those who were "thirsty". He was/is the greatest example of love for others that there is because He died, having never met us, for us while we were so sinful. If He is to be our example, then, literally, we are to do what He does. If we have a genuine love for others, then all decisions will take into account, and be sincerely responsive about, the well-being of all people involved. But this isn’t a hard concept, it’s simply the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 

                    As for my opinion, if a person possesses these two qualities, love of God and love of others, all other virtues/values which are the foundation for making ethical decisions will follow. They will not have to be learned abstractly and within no context because they will be actions that arise as cause and effect: Because you love God and others, the effect is that you will develop the characteristics that reflect love. 

                    There are certain characteristics that are more important to me than others such as: trustworthiness. If there is no trust in a relationship there is nothing. Furthermore, if a non-Christian has no trust in you, how do you ever expect to convert him, which is the very essence of our Christianity. I have always liked the song "Standing On The Promises" because of that statement…standing on the promises. The words "standing on" emphasize the majesty of what we really are doing. When I think of standing on something I think of something that holds me up as in this past year when we went to Guyana, SA, and I stood on the very edge of the Kaiture Falls, five times higher than Niagara, and NOTHING was holding me up but that ledge I was on. To think that we are standing on the PROMISES of God is a very amazing thing to me to be standing on when there’s nothing below me. Can you think another’s promises you’d rather be standing on? That’s a sobering thought. It is a valuable thing to be able to trust in God’s promises. 

                    Jesus was trustworthy in that He came to earth to do a mission and as much as He wished the cup to pass, He still carried out that mission. (Good thing for us.) He is also trustworthy in that He said He loved us, and we have to be able to trust that because our salvation depends on it. His love for us is our only connection to God. Yes, trust is a gravely important thing indeed. 

                    I have many other virtues/values I consider important, most of which stem from all else discussed. Honesty, faithfulness, respect, loyalty, a forgiving heart, and many others. But the important thing, to reiterate, is that love should always be at the heart, and if it is these other attributes will surge from it, and making the right ethical decisions will not be so grievous. 

QUALITY INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

                    A quality interpersonal relationship is a relationship, which is built on understanding of self and others.  A quality interpersonal relationship goes beyond just being casually acquainted with others to sharing with and gaining an understanding of one another.  What I mean by sharing with is that you get a feeling for each other.  I can empathize with you and see things through your eyes.  When a quality interpersonal relationship is present there's certain amount of synergy that takes place between the persons involved in the relationship.  A good example of a quality interpersonal relationship could be found within the strong family unit.

                    If we were to study a family that is close knit what would we see.  We would most likely see the following characteristics: individual respect, trust, open lines of communication, open mindedness, patience, empathy, love and many other attributes which add up to a strong interpersonal relationship. With in a strong family you find people that truly feel for each other. For example if Mom is sick the morale of the other family members goes down. If Dad gets a promotion the hold family shares the feelings of esteem with Dad. The point I'm trying to make is that in quality interpersonal relationship you will start to feel some of things that I feel which allow you to better understand me and communicate with me.  Although a quality interpersonal relationship sounds like the best thing since Campbell soup and the Gerry-curl it's not a relationship that's easily achieved.

                    To achieve a quality interpersonal relationship takes time, effort, desire, understanding, trust, disclosure, and feedback, effective communication, and etc.  When we first meet a person we don't immediately establish an interpersonal relationship.  As implied in the opening paragraphs, a quality interpersonal relationship goes for beyond conducting casual conversation.  It takes time to build an interpersonal relationship.  Why?  People like to interact; however, they are protective of there feelings and don't immediately open up to let you inside to see who's live there.  What I'm saying is to establish an interpersonal relationship with others you need to know things about them and get some perception of how they interpret things.  To get this type of understanding about another person takes time.  A good example would be the development of a friendship.

                    Think of your best friend.  This is probably one of the most productive impersonal relationships that exist for you.  Now go back from the time you met up until now.  How did you get to become such best friends?  As you think through the process you find those things that lead you to become best friends are the some of the same things that are required to build and interpersonal relationship.  I think the depth or even mere existence of an interpersonal relationship hinges on disclosure and feedback.

                    Let's talk about the importance of disclosure and feedback in a quality interpersonal relationship. First of all let me give credit where credit is do.  My ideas of disclosure and feedback come from the self-disclosure model developed by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham.  The model has become know and Johari's window.  The premise of the model is that the more we disclose about ourselves and get feedback the more we learn about ourselves and the more others learn about us.  I believe there is a direct tie between this theory and how a quality interpersonal relationship is achieved.  When I met the person who is now my best friend, I started the relationship with a casual hello, like most people do.  As time passed, I found reasons to disclose things about me.  Well guess what happen; as I started to disclose things about me he also shared things about him.  As more time passed, we started to give feedback to each other about the characteristics and behaviors of each other. The longer relationship lasted and the more we disclosed the more we begin to trust each other.  The more trust the more disclosure and feedback.  This continued until we've developed an inseparable friendship and a top quality interpersonal relationship.  So you can see it doesn't happen over night and it takes time and risk to build an interpersonal relationship.  The risk comes in when we open ourselves up and share some the personal things that could be used to damage us emotionally.  Although a quality interpersonal relationship is difficult to develop it more than worth it in every walks of life, personal and professional life. 

                    My organization is responsible developing curriculum for supervisory and management courses. Our job requires the most effective communication skills that we could possibly use.  Our customers depend on our communication skills.  To give our customer a quality product requires a lot of interaction between those of use in the organization.  The very nature of our business is very stressful because the job requires us to be somewhat creative.  We have many think sessions just to figure out which direction to take.  At time the emotions run rampant during these think sessions.  Opinions are criticized and feelings are crushed.  This is where a quality interpersonal relationship is important.  I believe we have quality interpersonal relationships present in our organization.  So instead of addressing what would happen if they were to occur, I’d address what happens due to the presents of the quality interpersonal relationships.

                    Our organization is an excellent place to work.  The good Lord blessed me when He assigned me to the organization.  The work is challenging but because of the interpersonal relationships you look forward to the challenge.  I'm not saying I don't get frustrated or complain but when I do feel this way there’s someone there that will listen.  The management shows a genuine concern for the workers.  The lines of communication are open from top to bottom.  There is known backstabbing and very few negative comments about the work ethics of other.  Let me give you example.  There are times that my boss and I have major disagreements to the point of raising our voice and getting frustrated to such a time we have to call timeout.  You would think that this would cause hard feeling between the two of us on standing bases, not so.  The healing process is quick and we have one of the best bosses to subordinate relationships I've seen.  It's not just like that with me but with all of us that have been assigned for over six months or so.  I say six months or so because it takes that long to get use to each other.  Another major plus is all of us are able to discuss what's on our minds with out fear of retribution.  There's a lot of trust between each of us.  All of these things are a result of the strong interpersonal relationships that exist in the organization. 

The Breakdown of Society

                    Over the years, people have brought forward hundreds of proposals for the breakdown of society. One of the more popular, or perhaps notorious, depending on your point of view, has placed the blame on the rising predominance of single parent households in society. I personally have trouble believing that one problem can be held responsible for all of societys ills. However, I can definitely see how some people could feel so strongly about this. 

                    Coming from a two-parent family, I cannot speak from experience about life in a single parent household; but I do have friends and acquaintances that were brought up in single parent households. When I spent time with these people and their families, it became quite clear to me that their way of life, though not necessarily better or worse than mine, was certainly not the same. They were clearly missing certain aspects of life that I was accustomed to. 

                    For instance, while growing up, I always had the experience of two adults on which I could draw in order to form my own opinions, whereas the children who had grown up with only one parent were not afforded this luxury. I always felt bad for them because I had something that they didnt have. Whenever I brought it up, they became very defensive of the parent they lived with, and accused me of being shortsighted. 

                    Financially, single parent households seem to be at a definite disadvantage compared to households with both parents. There are many statistics showing how difficult it is to support a family on one income. Even the United States department of Health and Human Services has declared, It is no longer feasible in America to enjoy a middle class standard of living without the presence of two incomes (Burk, 1). This problem seems to be worsened by the unfair system of transfer payments that has been implemented by our government. It becomes a case of two families living on two incomes, rather than the traditional system of one family living on the same two incomes. 

                    Recent efforts to criminalize non-payment of child support are ludicrous. It gives boys the message that when they grow up and foolishly become fathers themselves, their lives will be destroyed by bitter wives, just like their fathers before them had their lives ruined. Girls, on the other hand, get the impression that they can grow up and become breeder mommies whose lives will be subsidized by government sanctioned child support. The net effect is bitter children with a warped sense of values. In addition to marring the children, this also poses the question of how a father would be able to pay child support from prison (Burk, 2). 

                    Clearly, this is a very obtuse point of view. To blame all of this problem solely on either the mothers or the fathers would be cruelly unfair. Obviously both parents should be held both financially and emotionally responsible for the raising of a child, even if the child only lives with one of these parents. Some fair system must be designed so that a child can be financially supported, without draining the assets of the non-custodial parent. I personally feel that a child would be able to get just as much love and emotional nourishment from one parent as a child would get from both. Though there may be more of a financial burden, I think that children of single parent families can live as full, happy, and successful a life as their two-parent counterparts. Surely, there must be thousands of children from single parent households who have made very successful lives for themselves despite their upbringings. Or, maybe their single parent upbringing actually contributed to their success. Perhaps some children thrive on the difficulties that they faced as children and are all the better for having gone through it. 

                    Statistically, however, far more social pathologies can be found among children from single parent households than can be found among children from two parent households. There is a broad spectrum of these problems, obviously 

rooted in single parenting: 63% of all youth suicides are committed by children from single parent households; 70% of all teenage pregnancies occur in women from single parent families; 71% of all adolescent chemical and substance abusers reign from households with only one parent present; 80% of all prison inmates grew up with only one parent; 90% of all homeless and runaway children belong to families with only one parent (Burk 2). These statistics point a very guilty finger in the direction of single parent families being to blame for the breakdown of society. 

                    Though these are definitely strong statistics; in my opinion, they don’t demonstrate anything but the fact that more programs need to be in place to help children regardless of their parenting situation. Since none of these statistics equals a full 100%, it is clear that children from two parent families, can also fall victim to these social pathologies. This still leaves the question in the air of whether society as a whole is to blame for its downfall of if all problems are rooted in single parenting practices. 

                    There is substantial evidence to support the belief that single parent households place a severe financial burden on society as a whole. Since single parents need to be home to take care of their children, many cannot or choose not to work, and are forced to go on welfare to survive. With as many as five million families are on welfare at this time, this program this costs the combined state and federal governments 25.2 billion dollars per year. That figure works out to an average of approximately 156 dollars per family per year in federal and state taxes (Freeman, 1). However, perhaps it is our responsibility to share some of this burden. As our esteemed First Lady put it "It takes a village to raise a child." 

                    There is clearly a much tougher burden placed on single parents that on parents of an "textbook family." This parent becomes responsible not only for providing financially for their children, but also being the sole provider of guidance, companionship, and moral support, all of which are vital to the healthy upbringing of a child. They have no one to share this workload with, nor do they have anyone as a companion, on whom they can vent their frustrations and joys. This must be a terrible burden for only one parent to handle alone. Perhaps this is contributing to the fact that nearly 70% of child abuse is perpetrated by single parents (Burk, 1). In addition, there are certain things that a child needs to learn from a person of one particular gender. Children of single parents often miss out on this. 

                    However difficult this burden may be to shoulder, I believe that some people are born with certain inherent characteristics that make them more or less able to handle this burden. Some people are perfectly happy raising children by themselves, and if they can find a way to meet the needs of their children, I believe that they can make perfectly good parents. Also, there are support groups for single parents, which can, in some ways, be a partial substitute for the second parent. There are many cases in which a child that has grown up with both parents is less successful in life than a similar child that had only one parent participate in their upbringing. As Vernellia Randall writes in her "Open Letter on Single Parenting", "I submit that it is not the structure of families that determine their success, but whether the adult(s) in the family have a good education, make a decent income, and have good parenting skills. Being a single parent is not the problem; it's the lack of these ingredients that is the problem." 

                    So the question remains would society be better off in there were no single parent households? Perhaps it would be. 

                    Or, maybe it wouldn't be. Since there doesn't seem to be any way to prove either case, the goal of society should be to deal with the task at hand, which is to properly raise children, regardless of how many parents they live with. 

                    Even if it were somehow proved that single parent families are hurting society, there is very little that could be done to curb this trend. I personally don't see what society has to gain by pointing fingers, but I do understand mankind's instinctual need to place blame, whether the target of the blame deserves it or not. 

THE CONFLICTS OF THE MODERN WORLD.

A COMPETITIVE SOCIETY.

                                  

He, who commands the past, controls the future,

                                   He, who controls the future, conquers the past.

                                                                                  -KANE-

In this composition I would like to discuss the conflicts of the modern world and the consequences of the competitive society. Being asked about this I usually start with a competitive society. Because this is the thing we face in every day life and always ask one question ourselves: ’Why have we created the world full of troubles and problems whereas we ourselves live in it?’ This sounds really paradoxical but it is true. For instance, the taxes in our country bring so many troubles to people who want to start their own business that they simply have to find ways not to pay them. Thousands of examples all over the world can be given here but the idea is that, understanding all this, we do not try even to improve anything.

On the other hand competitive life exists even at school where pupils are to participate in a so-called ‘racing game’ which is based on gaining better marks and results in everything. This idea is not new that is why different people at different times tried to solve this problem. The most famous is the of about social equality. The idea of social equality is really silly, to my mind, because there will always be one who will think that he is better than the others and just only due to this we will not ever get equality.

On the contrary, if there is no competitive society there is no development. It is of no use of aspiring to the best. Nothing but a competitive society made a man  make a flight to space. Besides, there were a lot of other discoveries, which improved the life and social conditions, which happened only due to competitive society.

I believe, that there exists only one solution. It is nesessary to develop the competitive society limited with a strict law. Because we do not realize that this competitive society reflects Darwin’s theory about survival but on a higher level. Moreover, we do not realize that the last level of such development is a war.

            From my point of view, the problem of a war is the most urgent problem nowadays due to the invention of new high technological weapons and weapons of mass destruction. It is extremely important to bear in mind that the only horrible thing, which will ever happen, is the third world war.

            Wars are counterproductive and useless. A war has no explanation. But why do wars start? According to history wars can start because of the territory division, problems of religion, envy, misunderstanding between diplomats. However, there are many other reasons why a war starts. The main idea is that people do not usually understand the causes of war and do not understand its reasons because politicians usually decide weather the war should start or not. But let us pass over to the history of wars.

The main idea is that the first thousand male human beings were ever gathered together, they belonged to an army, and large-scale slaughter of people happened soon afterwards. Moreover, the first army carried such weapons as spears, knives, axes, perhaps bows and arrows and its strength did not lie in mere members but in discipline and organisation. In addition, drill is what transforms a mob of individual fighters into an army. Therefore, the basic forms of military drill are among the most unchanging elements of human civilisation. Though every man died his own death, what happened was quite impersonal during the battle of well-drilled armies. The result is that thousands of men would die in half an hour, in an area not bigger than a couple of two football fields. Consequently, a question immediately comes to mind: ‘How could men do this?’ The reason is that a formation of drilled men has a different psychology, which tends to overpower the personal identity and fears of the individuals. In conclusion, people will kill if they find themselves in a situation where their own survival is threatened and due to this anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in this way.

But the war has changed through the ages in some ways. First, the reasons of war somehow differ. Besides, the scale of wars has changed. In addition the technology has greatly changed and plenty of new weapons have appeared. But war has not changed in one thing. It is suffering it brings.

If you want my opinion then I am sure that I will never fight in a war if I do not understand the reasons and aims of this war. The only thing I will fight for is my family. Maybe, you are surprised because I haven’t said ‘motherland’ but I will not fight for my motherland if I find it’s politically wrong or not suitable for me.

Besides, what really irritates me is that a lot of important facts are neglected in our history books and, reading them, you get the impression that the Second World War for instance was nothing but a set of dates and battles. This makes the younger generation misunderstand the reality of war and understand it thoughtlessly.                           

            Finally, let’s hope that there will never ever happen any war and there will be the time when people will understand all the uselessness of war.    

Schools in Russia.

-    So, N., you have told that you don’t like the whole system of education in our country. But instead of criticizing it, let’s try to discuss the improvements to be made in schools.

-    The main idea of all improvements, I think is to make school fit the child-instead of making the child fit the school.

-    But what does it mean?

-    We shouldn’t rob the pupils of their childhood and we should teach them in accordance with their ages and interests and in a very comprehensive form.

-    I see, the ideal school is to be based not only on scholarship but also on the right methods of teaching. We must seek not only to put into the mind of the pupils items of knowledge, but also to educe the learner’s mind.

-    And I think there is not enough emphasis on practical education. We should have more preparation for” the outside life”

-    Yes, and on the top of everything the school should organize more social events for pupils.

-    That’s quite right. 

Schools interview.

-    Hello, I’m a Russian TV journalist. I have gone in to the streets of London to ask people about British system of education. Will you agree answer some questions.

-    Oh, nice to meet you. I will answer your questions with great pleasure if I’m able to do it.

-    So, as I know there are two types of education in GB: state and private. What type is better?

-    I prefer state schools because there are free but private schools are better equipped, their teachers are highly qualified and thus their children can acquire better knowledge.

-    How are state and private schools controlled by? 

-    Private schools are independent, states schools controlled by local authorities.

-    Do parents have freedom in choosing the school?

-    Yes, they do.

-    And the last question is: Do you like the whole system of British education or you think there are many improvements to be made in it?

-    I suppose there is no enough emphasize on practical education. We should have more preparation for ”the outside world”. 

Schools mothers.

-    Hello Nat nice to meet you.

-    Nice to meet you Mary. But what’s happened? Why are so upset?

-    It’s because Kathlin I cant choose to send her to a state school or a private one.

-    I think sate schools have many advantages: there are free, they accept a wide range of children from all backgrounds, ethnic groups and religious, they provide their pupils with books and equipment for their studies.

-    That’s quite right. I dream of a good private school with long history and tradition. Their better equipped, their teachers are highly qualified and thus their pupils acquire better knowledge.

-    But all private schools are expensive and you should have put your child’s name on a long waiting- list at her birth to be sure she got a place. My children go to a state school their knowledge isn’t bad.

-    I’m afraid you’re right. And I agree with you. I hope Kathlin will be a quick pupil.

Illness.

-    Oh, Nat. Why have you disappeared? I think it’s the very time for us to go somewhere and chat. We haven’t so long.

-    Excuse me Mary, but I’m so busy. I have no spare minute.

-    But what’s happened. Why are you so upset?

-    It because of my husband. He has the first signs of flu coming on as he says. But I’m afraid he is in the grip of some fatal illness.

-    Don’t worry. All men are the same. They like to show that they suffer their pain bravely, but in reality they just love being nursed and fussed over. They are ready to make a tree-day-cold last a week in order to feel sorry for themselves.

-    Most men are really good at this sort of things and will exploit a minor illness to a good effect but…

-    But what? He is probably suffering from nothing more than a hangover, but you will have to keep yourself away night after night and listen to his moans and groans. I have been through this hell many times.

-    May be you are right but I even like looking after sick.

-    But let me give you an advice: a wife also should pretend ill from time to time if she wants her husband to realize how mush she does for him.

Interview.

-    Come in. Please, take a seat.

-    Thanks you very much.

-    What’s your name?

-    My name is Susan Jones.

-    Do you want to get a job?

-    Yes, I’ve read this advertisement and decided to try my luck.

-    Then you should fill this application form and take the interview. If you pass it, welcome to the job.

-    I see.

-    So, Susan, how old are you?

-    I’m 20.

-    Are you married?

-    No, I’m not yet.

-    What education do you have?

-    I went to a secondary school and college of education then. But I didn’t go to university.

-    Why do you want to work as a nurse?

-    I must admit I don’t need money very much. The main aim is to know some things about the world at work and to gain my own experience of communication with children. I’m so fond of children.

-    Well, thank you. Now you should meet the parents of the children and discuss all details. You are likely to get the job.

Perfect Interview.

-    Hello, Nat. Nice to meet you. I haven’t seen you to long and I think it’s the very time for us to go somewhere and chat (talk).

-    Oh, Mary, I’ve so short of time. The thing is that I’m going to the interview for my first job.

-    That’s fine. But why are you so upset?

-    I’m afraid I’ll lose this job. I don’t know what to do.

-    Let me give you some advices and you’ll have the perfect interview. You should keep calm and think positively and confidently about yourself, keep a balance of power and don’t be timid out be aware of your body language.

-    And what about my dress? How do dress the part?

-    I think a suit is always safe.

-    And what shall I do it they offer the job to me on the spot?

-    Ask for some time to consider their offer and remember that you’d use the interview to discover a ch about the job as possible.

-    Thank you very much. I think your advices will help me to get this job.

-    Mighty sure.

Teaching profession.

-    Nice to meet you Tim. I’ve heard you’re working on an oilrig in the North Sea.

-    Your information is right, you can’t imagine how my work is profitable: there are several free months a year and a high salary. And what about you?

-    Oh, I’m a teacher in a comprehensive school. I’ve devoted several years of my life to studying in order to obtain the necessary qualification but my skills and years when I were studying instead of earning money are not rewarded.

-    As I know you are so fond of children, you do a job, which brings you personal satisfaction. So you’re receive part of you recompense in the form of a so-called “psychic wage”. I think that it’s a man with a hard and dangerous work must be highly paid for the risks he takes.

-    But another factor we should take into consideration is how socially useful my work is, regardless of the talents I bring to it.

-    Yes, teaching children is more important. But I think we should not try to compare the pay of different professions because market forces largely determine the amount of money that people earn.

Health decisions.

-    Hello, Tim. Nice to see you again. Do you smoke? You are looking so tired.

-    Yes, I’m smoking and I don’t know how to give up this bad habit.

-    You must remember that smokers run double the risk of contracting heart diseases, several time the risk of suffering from chronic bronchitis and at less 25 times the risk of lung cancer as compared to non smokers.

-    Yes, I know about it, but I can’t do a thing with it. There are two types of the risks: voluntary risks and involuntary risks. Voluntary for example car driving, drinking, motorcycling, rock climbing and smoking; and involuntary are leukemia, falling aircraft, and atomic power station.

-    Do you heard about these problems in this country? Also the most important problem in our country is drinking.

-    Yes, I know about these problems. I read that American psychologists have shown that people overestimate the frequency of the dramatic causes of death and underestimate the undramatic, unpublished killers, which actually take a greater toll of life.

Common Ground

               In many of John Steinbeck's works there are themes and elements that parallel his other works. Steinbeck often tackles the result of people's bad fortune and the realization that their dreams have been destroyed. We can see that in his Pulitzer Prize winning The Grapes of Wrath and his critically acclaimed novel Of mice and Men Steinbeck shows us the results of people having their dreams destroyed. Steinbeck shows us that in his work he gives different characters similar goals and aspirations and has them destroyed in similar ways. 

               In both of the above-mentioned books key characters have their dreams destroyed. "Steinbeck often created characters possessing lofty goals; lofty goals in a world of despair and corruption. His characters did not have a dream of tangible luxuries, but a dream of corporal well being and refuge with loved ones"(Thomas 238). In Of Mice and Men, Lennie and George travel to California in order to find work. Once they salvage up enough money, Lennie and George plan on being independent and not worrying about the outside world and its enigmas. George stated "Someday we're gonna get all the jack together and were gonna have a little house and a couple of acres an' a cow and some pigs." (Roberts, 187). George's dream ran deeper than a love for farming and independence. The motivation for this dream was not just a product of the poor state of the country and widespread unemployment, but it was a dream that could ensure a happy ending for Lennie. George is anxious to secure his own place so that Lennie can live the type of life where he can be happy and not be hurt by people who do not understand his simple ways. George would run the farm; Lennie would tend the rabbits. This was Lennies dream, to tend the rabbits. He could think of nothing else more enjoyable than tending the rabbits. "Lennies dram is to have all the rabbits that he can take care of, and his attempts to do the right thing are motivated by his fear that George won't let him take care of the rabbits." (Tedlock 243). In The Grapes of Wrath the Joad family also dreams of moving out west. They do this in hopes of escaping the direful situation in Oklahoma. "Gonna buy a car and shove out west where it's easy living." (Steinbeck 57). The Joads like Lennie and George plan on saving up enough money for their own plot of land. Once this task is accomplished they hope to live a self-sufficient life and rely on one another. They believe that once in California they will find life easier and find all they need in surplus. "Jus' let me get out to California where I can pick me an orange when I want it. Or grapes, there's a thing I ain't never had enough of. Gonna get me a whole bunch of grapes off a bush, or whatever, an' I'm gonna squash 'em on my face an' let 'em run off my chin".(Steinbeck 105).

               There is clearly a parallel between the themes of these two books. As both works have the same basis for the characters dreams. How the dream was destroyed George and Lennie never had their dreams come true. When they arrived at the homestead for work; George and Lennie at once felt hostility from the ranch owner's son Curley. Curley was a sinister short-tempered man possessing little physical stature. From Curleys first encounter with Lennie, Curley was looking for an excuse to fight the simple-minded Lennie. "Curley develops a hatred for the bigger man which will be expressed in his desire to mutilate Lennie in the final scene." (Magil 4296) Lennie ended up killing Curleys wife. This was not a malicious act however. It was an accident that had an unfortunate consequence. "Lennies greatest difficulty is remembering. While he never plans to do anything wrong, he simply cannot remember what is wrong and what is not." (Magil 89). That consequence being the death of Curley's wife, and that Curley ordered the men to kill Lennie. The workers assembled and took up arms. George knew that the men were not out to right a wrong, but out to seek vengeance. George decided that he must kill Lennie. George knew that this was the only solution that would spare Lennie the misery that would be inflicted on him by Curley and his men. Like George and Lennie the Joads never saw their dreams materialize. They to were victims of the greed of this time period. The people of the west were averse to change. They were afraid of the migrants because of their different life styles. "Sure they talk the same language, but they ain't the same. Look how they live. Think any of us would live like that? Hell no!" (Steinbeck 302). The Joads soon learned that the people of the west actually hated the "Oakies". A man returning back to the Midwest from California told of the troubles to be found ahead. "People gonna have a look in their eye. They gonna look at you an' their face says, "I don't like you, you son-of-a-bitch." Gonna be deputy sheriffs an they'll push you aroun'. You camp on the roadside an they'll move you on. You gonna see in peoples faces how they hate you."(Steinbeck 306). As the Joads arrive into California they see that their dreams will go unanswered. The land looked beautiful but the circumstances would not allow for prosperity. "Looking into the valley the Joads regret that theirs cannot be the tranquil life that it promises."(Tedlock 40). The dreams of George of and Lennie were destroyed as a result of apathy.

               Throughout this novel we can see how Steinbeks characters have a total lack of interest in others well being. In the first chapter the bus driver drops George and Lennie off miles from their destination. The driver did this just to spare himself a few minutes of work. The dream was not destroyed due to killing of Curley's wife at the hands of Lennie. But as a result of Curley's lack of empathy. If Curley were more understanding and considerate of Lennies condition the dream may have grown and bloomed into reality. However given the circumstances George had no choice but to sacrifice he and Lennies dream so that Lennie would not suffer at the hands of Curley. George decided that the only solution was to kill Lennie. The Joads also had their dreams destroyed at the hands of apathetic people. The Joads were treated and looked at by the ranch owners like a team of oxen. They were expected to work long and hard hours for insulting wages. The authorities did not have any concern for the poor who were being taken advantage of. Children were not even spared from the work and, like their parents went hungry. "The kid's yo ought to see them. Little boils, like comin' out, an' they can't run around. Give 'em some windfall fruit, an' they bloated up." ('Steinbeck 363). They turned their heads away from the atrocities that were taking place in front of them, and bowed their heads to the almighty dollar. The migrants had no choice if they wanted to work. If they refused the wages somebody else would be glad to take the job. "Suppose you got a job an' work, an' there’s jus' one fella wants the job. You got to pay him what he ast's. But suppose them men got kids, an' them kids is hungry. Spose a dime'll buy a box of mush for them. An you got a hundred men, jus' offer 'em a nickel. Why, they’ll kill each other fighting for that nickel". (Steinbeck 324). It was a rat race. The only way to get ahead in the world portrayed by Steinbeck was to turn your back on your fellow man.  

               In these to works of Steinbeck the plight of the migrants is examined. Often it's the wealth of the landowners pitted against the poor. In both works this wealth has molded the authorities into cold heartless men. These greedy individuals destroy the dreams of the migrants. The villainous characters he portrayed only had a sense of present pleasure. They had no concern for the fact that at the present moment a child had no life or food. The lower class had no way of getting ahead. Steinbecks charecters never had their dreams materialize into achieved goals. This was true in both of Steinbecks above mentioned works. George and Lennies followed their dream only to have it turn into a nightmare. The Joads journey led them from the barrenand sterile land, to the green, fertile yet poisonous land. In the end dreams turned out to be just that, dreams, nothing more.

"I TRADED A HABIT OF CONDUCT AND ATTITUDE FOR COMFORT AND DIGNITY AND A CUSHION OF SECURITY"

John Steinbeck showed alarm and disapproval to the rise of materialism and the post-World War 2, capitalistic morals found in America during the 1960's. These views were expressed through various characters in his novel The Winter of Our Discontent. This book dealt with the downward spiral of a good man, Ethan Allen Hawley. Pressured on all sides by influences once considered immoral, but now accepted in the 1960's, Ethan, a grocery store clerk from a family of sea captains and wealthy businessmen, "...traded a habit of conduct and attitude for comfort and dignity and a cushion of security".

Ethan's son Allen embodies the ideals of the up and coming generation in the 1960's. Growing up in the age of the supermarkets, game show scandals, and fixed traffic tickets, Allen's view of "Something for nothing. Wealth without effort" represented the exact opposite that of his father. Ethan, a man perhaps too concerned with the past, was a character Steinbeck used to speak his voice. Ethan was a man accustomed to honesty, good business, and respect. Allen lived in a world much different than that of Ethan. Allen was raised thinking that being dishonest, immoral, and underhanded was accepted. "Everybody does it. It's the way the cookie crumbles.", Allen said when confronted by his father about plagiarizing famous speeches for the "I Love America Contest". The only real opposition came when a person got caught. It almost seemed as if society allowed these illegal actions as long as the person(s) evaded punishment. The only reason Allen seemed upset was because he got caught, not because what he had done was wrong.

Steinbeck seemed to show that he felt family history to be very important. Ethan showed great persistence in asking Mr. Baker about the sinking of the Belle-Adair, which Ethan's predecessors felt to have been purposefully burned by the Baker family for the insurance money. Ethan's primary motivation to make a few immoral decisions came from internal pressure he felt to live up to the name of Hawley. He seemed very self-conscience and maybe even ashamed of the fact that he was a lowly grocery clerk, in a foreign owned store, which his family had once owned. Ethan began to hate Mr. Baker when he discovered that the Baker family had used the Hawley's trust in them to gain more land in New Baytown by giving bad investment tips. The prevailing view in the 1960's had become "You got to look after number one". This idea was shown through Margie Young-Hunt, the aging woman who was recognized even by herself as being, "New Baytown's playmate...". Margie was a self-serving woman who married and divorced for money. She lived her life for herself, always looking upon a situation and deciding what she could get out of it. She didn't sleep with the men she did (Chief Smith, Marullo, Danny, Joey, Biggers, etc.) for money, or because of a low self-esteem, or for any reason other than for her own personal gain. Through these men she became more knowledgeable about New Baytown than anyone else did, "These friends talked freely and without fear to her, for to them she was a kind of Andersen's well-receptive, unjudging and silent."

John Steinbeck uses Ethan's encounter with Mr. Biggers to show the contrast between his views, as shown through Ethan, and the views of the majority of America in the 1960's, as shown through Mr. Biggers and Ethan's wife, Mary. Ethan was offered a deal from Biggers, a wholesale food salesman. If Ethan bought from him, he would get a five percent bonus, and Marullo would never know. "This five percent could be in cash-no records, no trouble with the tax boys...". Then Biggers offered Ethan a bribe. Ethan was appalled at Mr. Biggers offer; "You want me to double-cross the man I work for?". Biggers responded with a stereotypical American response, "Who's double-crossed? He don't lose anything and you make a buck. Everybody's got a right to make a buck."

Later, Mary attacked and scolded Ethan for being naive and morally pure. "I'd like to be able to hold up my head in this town," Mary would gladly trade "...a habit of conduct and attitude for comfort and dignity..." Steinbeck used Mary to show the typical American desire for the materialistic things in life. She was so preoccupied with being respected and comfortable that she condoned unethical ways of getting money. Mary, and the children, were so absorbed with having a car, a t.v., money for summer camp, that they accepted the contests, the scams, the bribes, the insider information, and the five percent bonuses as suitable and guiltless ways to obtain"...comfort and dignity and a cushion of security."

Because of the criticism that Steinbeck gave the post World War 2 America, The Winter of Our Discontent was not a popular book in the states, although very popular abroad. The book condemned a trend of moral degradation that America as a whole did not want to recognize. Steinbeck pointed out the increasing number of Americans that were grabbing, "...the gold ring for a free ride," (212) with disregard for their friends, neighbors, and family. Through his description of the "downfall of a good man", Steinbeck forced Americans to be wary of their materialistic wants, and to take heed of what is just and ethical.

[Steinbeck's Primitivism]

      There were a few social realists in the period [the 1930s] who did promise something different from the automatism of contemporary naturalism and the cult of the hard-boiled, notably John Steinbeck; but his case has always been a curious one. Steinbeck's approach to the novel was interesting because he seemed to stand apart at a time when naturalism had divided writers into two mutually exclusive groups, since the negation of its starved and stunted spirit came more and more from writers who often had no sympathy with realism at all, and were being steadily pulled in the direction of surrealism and abstractionism. Naturalism had made for so drearily uniform a conception of the novel, so mechanical an understanding of reality, that it is not strange to find many writers, and particularly so many young writers, revolting entirely against realism to work in Innerlichkeit. Just as the literary criticism of the crisis period was marked by the conflict of two groups of absolutists, one absorbed in "social significance," the other in technical problems, so it is significant to note the polarization in fiction between a grim surface realism and a literature of private sensibility. Inevitably, in a world where the public reality can seem so persistently oppressive and meaningless, while the necessity for new means of communication is so pressing, the more sensitive artist is steadily withdrawn into himself, into those reaches of the unconscious where "one can make a world within a world." But in this conflict between the outer and inner worlds of reality, between the fragmentary realizations that each represents, the patterns of contemporary desperation can nullify one another.

      Steinbeck, standing apart from both the contemporary naturalists and the new novel of sensibility that one finds in Faulkner and Wolfe, brought a fresh note into contemporary fiction because he promised a realism less terror-ridden than the depression novel, yet one consciously responsible to society; a realism mindful of the terror and disorganization of contemporary life, but not submissive to the spiritual stupor of the time; a realism in some equal measure, if only in its aspiration, to the humanity, the gaiety, the wholeness, of realism in a more stable period. It is the failure of so many contemporary American novelists to suggest even the urgency of such an achievement that marks their unconscious submission to the demoralization in contemporary life. Yet it cannot be said that Steinbeck's work, which has become more and more tenuous and even sentimental, has really answered to that need. With a writer like Farrell, oppressively narrow as his world is, one at least knows where he stands -- his integrity, his materialism, and the full range of his belief. Steinbeck is a greater humanist, and there is poetry in some of his best work, particularly in The Long Valley stories and The Pastures of Heaven, that naturalists of Farrell's stamp have never been able to conceive. But there is something imperfectly formed about Steinbeck's work; it has no creative character. For all his moral serenity, the sympathetic understanding of men under strain that makes a strike novel like In Dubious Battle so notable in the social fiction of the period, Steinbeck's people are always on the verge of becoming human, but never do. There is a persistent failure to realize human life fully in his books, where the characters in many American naturalistic novels have simply ceased to be human. After a dozen books, Steinbeck still looks like a distinguished apprentice, and what is so striking in his work is its inconclusiveness, his moving approach to human life, and yet his failure to be creative with it.

      Steinbeck's moral advantage as a realist in the depression era was to be so different in his region -- the Salinas Valley in California -- his subject, as to seem a different kind. It was his famous "versatility" that first earned him his reputation -- his ability to follow a Tortilla Flat with In Dubious Battle, Of Mice and Men with The Grapes of Wrath -- but this was the least noteworthy thing about him and has come more and more to suggest not versatility but a need to fell his way. His great possession as a writer was not an interest in craft or an experimental spirit; it was an unusual and disinterested simplicity, a natural grace and tenderness and ease in his relation to his California world. Artistically, notably in early works like To a God Unknown and The Pastures of Heaven, these appeared as shyly artful primitivism reminiscent of Sherwood Anderson, and in its boyish California mysticism, of Frank Norris. But at bottom Steinbeck's gift was not so much a literary resource as a distinctively harmonious and pacific view of life. In a period when so many better writers exhausted themselves, he had welded himself into the life of the Salinas Valley and enjoyed a spiritual stability by reporting the life cycles of the valley gardeners and mystics and adventurers, by studying and steeping himself in its growth processes out of a close and affectionate interest in the biology of human affairs. Steinbeck's absorption in the life of his native valley gave him a sympathetic perspective on the animal nature of human life, a means of reconciliation of people as people. The depression naturalists saw life as one vast Chicago slaughterhouse, a guerilla war, a perpetual bombing raid. Steinbeck had picked up a refreshing belief in human fellowship and courage; he had learned to accept the rhythm of life. In one of the most beautiful stories in The Long Valley, "The Chrysanthemums," the heroine asks:

Did you ever hear of planting hands? ... It's when you're picking off the buds you don't want. Everything goes right down into your fingertips. You watch your fingers work. They do it themselves. You can see how it is. They pick and pick the buds. They never make a mistake. They're with the plant. Do you see? Your fingers and the plant. You can feel that, right up your arm. They know. They never make a mistake. You can feel it. When you're like that you can't do anything wrong.

      It was this "unpanicky questioning of life," as Edmund Wilson put it, that gave Steinbeck's work its unusual tenderness, gave his Valley-bred simplicity an advantageous perspective on contemporary social problems. With his deep amateur interest in biology, it gave him the necessary detachment and slow curiosity to approach the modern social struggle as a tragicomedy of animal instincts, which, as the best things in The Grapes of Wrath and In Dubious Battle testify, meant an aroused compassion, and understanding of the pain that the human animal can suffer and the mistakes he can make. The Doctor in In Dubious Battle, speaking for Steinbeck, disputes the Communist organizer's instinctive terrorism, and sats quietly:

My senses aren't above reproach, but they're all I have. I want to see the whole picture -- as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of "good" and "bad," and limit my vision. If I used the term "good" on a thing, I'd lose my license to inspect it, because there might be bad in it. Don't you see? I want to be able to look at the whole thing.

Later, he adds reflectively: "Group-men are always getting some kind of infection."

      This was the spirit of The Long Valley, the spirit of the old pioneer grandfather in "The Leader of the People," who, reminiscing of the westward migration, described it as "a whole bunch of people made into one big crawling beast.... Every man wanted something for himself, but the big beast that was all of them wanted only westering." People in Steinbeck's work, taken together, are often evil; a society moving on the principle of collective mass slowly poisons itself by corrupting its own members. But beyond his valley-bred conviction of the evil inherent in any society where men are at the mercy of each other's animalism, Steinbeck knew how to distinguish, in works like The Long Valley, In Dubious Battle, and The Grapes of Wrath, between the animal processes of life and social privation. Out of his slow curiosity, the strength of the agrarian tradition in him, Steinbeck was able to invest the migration of the Joads, if not his monochromatic characters, with a genuine tragic quality precisely because he felt so deeply for them and had seen first hand the gap between their simple belief in life and their degradation. He did not confuse the issue in The Grapes of Wrath; he was aroused by the man-made evil the Okies had to suffer, and he knew it as something remediable by men. And where another social realist might have confused the dark corners he described with the whole of life, Steinbeck had the advantage of his Western training, its plain confidence in men. The old pioneer grandfather in The Long Valley, remembering the brutality of men on the great trek, also remembered enough of its glory to say:

It wasn't Indians that were important, or adventurers, or even getting out here.... When we saw the mountains at last, we cried -- all of us. But it wasn't getting here that mattered, it was movement and westering. We carried life out here and set it down the way those ants carried eggs. And I was the leader. The westering was as big as God, and the slow steps that made the movement piled up and piled up until the continent was crossed.

      It was these associations that contributed to the success of The Grapes of Wrath and made it the most influential social novel of the period. Though the book was as urgent and as obvious a social tract for its time as Uncle Tom's Cabin had been for another, it was also the first novel of its kind to dramatize the inflictions of the crisis without mechanical violence and hatred. The bitterness was there, as it should have been, the sense of unspeakable human waste and privation and pain. But in the light of Steinbeck's strong sense of fellowship, his simple indignation at so much suffering, the Joads, while essentially symbolic marionettes, did illuminate something than the desperation of the time: they became a living and challenging part of the forgotten American procession. Though the characters were essentially stage creations, the book brought the crisis that had severed Americans from their history back into it by recalling what they had lost through it. It gave them a design, a sense of control, where out of other depression novels they could get only the aimless maniacal bombardment of rage. The lesson of the crisis, so often repeated in the proletarian novel and yet so lifeless in it, was suddenly luminous: it was an event in history, to be understood by history, to be transformed and remembered and taught in history. It was as if Steinbeck, out of the simplicity of his indignation, had been just primitive enough to call men back to their humanity, to remind depression America that a culture is only the sum total of the human qualities that make it up, and that "life can give a periodical beating to death any time," as a contemporary poet put it, "if given a chance and some help."

      It was this tonic sanity in a bad time, his understanding of the broad processes of human life, that gave Steinbeck his distinction among the depression realists. But no one can pretend, particularly after a book like The Moon Is Down, that it tells the whole story about him. For Steinbeck's primitivism is essentially uncreative, and for all his natural simplicity of spirit, there is trickiness, a stage cunning, behind it that has become depressing. Though his interests have carried him squarely into certain central truths about the nature of life, he has not been able to establish them in human character. Nothing in his books is so dim, significantly enough, as the human beings who live in them, and few of them are intensely imagined as human beings at all. It is obvious that his mind moves happily in realms where he does not have to work in very complex types -- the paisanos in Tortilla Flat, the ranch hands in Of Mice and Men, the Okies in The Grapes of Wrath, the strikers in In Dubious Battle, the farmers in The Long Valley, and the symbolic protagonists of democratic struggle and Nazi power in The Moon Is Down. But what one sees in his handling of these types is not merely a natural affection for this simplicity, but a failure to interest himself too deeply as individuals. It is not their simplicity that makes Lennie and George in Of Mice and Men into furry little animals, or the Joads into stage creations, or the characters in The Moon Is Down into manikins; it is Steinbeck's simplicity of characterization. It is not their paganism that makes the paisanos in Tortilla Flat so hard to take from one point of view; it is their undiluted cuteness. Steinbeck's perspective on human life always gives him a sense of process, an understanding of the circuits through which the human mind can move; but he cannot suggest the density of human life, for his characters are not fully human.

      It is in this light that one can understand why Steinbeck's moral serenity is yet so sterile and why it is so easy for him to step into the calculated sentimentality of Of Mice and Men and The Moon Is Down. In writers of a certain natural awkwardness, like Dreiser and Anderson, there is sentimentality, an impurity that follows from exaggeration and lack of control; but one is always conscious of the amplitude through which they move. Steinbeck is not awkward, no; but though he is restive in his simplicity, his imagination cannot rise above it. And it is that simplicity and facility, working together, a tameness of imagination operating slickly, that give its work its surface paradox of simplicity and trickiness, of integrity of emotion and endless contrivance of means. This does not mean a lack of sincerity; it does mean that Steinbeck is not so simple that he does not know how to please; or to take, as it were, advantage of himself. It is, after all, the cunning behind the poignant situation in Of Mice and Men, a certain Wollcott-like ambush of the heartstrings, that makes his little fable meritricious in its pathos, a moment's gulp; and it is the same air of calculation in The Moon Is Down, so much more glaring because of its subject, that makes this allegorical drama of the struggle of free men today merely depressing.

      The Moon Is Down, published after Pearl Harbor, was heartily disliked by many people; but chiefly, as it would seem, because Steinbeck had not been tough and violent enough, had not portrayed his Nazis in Norway as the brutal gangsters that Nazis in Norway, as elsewhere, have been. But this demand for absolute realism was too shrill with war tension, and missed the root of the book's failure. What is really striking about the novel -- so openly written, like Of Mice and Men, for the stage -- is how fantastically simple the whole anti-fascist struggle appeared to Steinbeck even as allegory, and yet how easy it was for him to transcribe his naievete into the shabbiest theater emotions. There is credulity here, even an essential innocence of spirit, and the kind of slow curiosity about all these war-haunted creatures that has always made Steinbeck's interest in the animal nature of life the central thing in his work. He does not appeal to the nature of Hitlerism, no; he has never appealed to any hatred. The Doctor, with his patient wisdom, speaks for him here as another doctor, a student of human affairs spoke in In Dubious Battle. But it is not the student's detachment that one remembers here; it is the facility that can turn this greatest of contemporary themes into a series of contrivances. We hear the affirmation of nobility Steinbeck wanted to make, as we hear it in all his work; but we cannot believe in it, for thjough it is intended to inspire us in the struggle against Hitlerism, there are no men and women here to fight it.... And Europe under Hitler, even a representative stage Europe, is not Monterey, where the paisanos had their fun; and it is not the Salinas Valley; and the people locked in its supreme struggle today are not Steinbeck's familiar primitives, only seeking to be human. No, they are not primitives at all. But Steinbeck's world is a kind of primitivism to the end -- primitive, with a little cunning.

The Times They Are a Changing:

A Look at the moral Disintegration of America in Steinbeck’s The Winter of Our Discontent

The life of Ethan Allen Hawley, which had for so long held to an irrefutable ethical standard, was about to undergo an unexpected and irreversible change. Likewise he was not alone; progress was descending upon all of New Baytown like the jets which swarmed "with increasing regularity" (196) at the nearby Templeton airfield. With them was coming a new breed, more and more focused on material wealth rather than honesty and principle. Ethan’s fourteen-year old son, Allen, was the embodiment of this new morality by which money was God and "morals are paintings on wall and scruples are money in Russia" (from the movie Sabrina, 1995). There was only one goal for this "forward-looking group" (141): money; and as Allen so clearly states, for them "it’s all dough, no matter how you get it" (91).

Ethan had always believed there existed certain "unchanging rules" (217) of basic kindness and decency which had always, and should always, govern men. He lived his life simply and honestly, guided by visions of his grandfather and Aunt Deborah who had, from his early youth, instilled in him this strong moral foundation; he was" the kid with the built-in judge" (153). The rules, however, were changing, and changing rapidly. No longer would virtue be the deciding factor when faced with temptation; if one stood to gain from a situation, "who gets hurt? Is it against the law?" (34). Quite the contrary, by the new standards, it would be a crime to act on one’s own behalf. Moral consequences were irrelevant; the only consideration was success, and "success is never bad" (239). Those still clinging to Ethan’s "old-fashioned fancy-pants ideas" (43) would be devoured by progress like the old Bay Hotel, "now being wrecked to make room for the new Woolworth’s (11).

Under this new law, business was "a kind of war" (115), and as such, casualties were inevitable. To survive, one had to be ruthless, step on anyone who got in the way; "some men had to get hurt, some even destroyed" (239). Ethan could see this reality, from Baker, who used and manipulated anyone he could if he meant he would profit, to his son, who gladly sacrificed his integrity for a watch an a spot on TV. They were mercenaries, focused only on personal gain, and while Ethan said he"wish[ed he] could admire them, even love them the way . . . Allen [did]" (196), just like the jets these soldiers"only function was killing" (196); their actions left him with "a sick feeling as though [his] soul had an ulcer" (196).

Ethan’s initial response to the corruption which had overtaken New Baytown was to fight the change. He rebelled against Murullo’s idea of "good business" (28)–business that didn’t give credit, that wasn’t kind, and that only looked after "number one" (27); and he rejected Biggers’ offers of money because they clashed with his ethical standards. Right and wrong were unambiguous concepts to him. But, when Ethan tried to imbue his son with these same values, Alole3n responded by saying, "you want me break the law?" (217). Already he had been consumed by the unfettered greed which Steinbeck saw destroying America.

At the root of this plague was "the Great God Currency" (168); money had so wholly become the focus of people’s lives that it was a religion, treated with as much reverence and adoration as the Christian God has once been by New Baytown’s Puritan forefathers. Without money, a person was nothing, an insignificant peon to be "canceled" (216) or tossed aside like a piece of trash without a second thought; even in the eyes of Ethan’s wife, "a grand gentleman without money [was just] a bum" (43). Mary and Allen longed for the chance to "wipe the sneers off the faces" (42) of their prosperous neighbors, and the only way they could see to accomplish their goal was to get money. Televisions and high society took precedence over the scrupulous standards of an honest grocery clerk.

Overwhelmed by the constant attacks on his moral code–from others and from himself–Ethan finally succumbed to the "law of the fang" (277). With the reassurance that his lapse in honor would exist only to meet a limited objective, he temporarily exchanged "a habit of conduct and attitude for comfort and dignity and a cushion of security" (257); and so began the descent of a good man. Just as he had once been so devoutly upright, as soon as the "game stopped being a game" (275) Ethan surrendered completely to his new course of action; he dedicated himself wholeheartedly to the idea that "man must carve and maul his way to get to be the King of the Mountain" (195), even if it meant carving through innocent friends, like Danny and Marullo. What did it matter that the entire affair repulsed him and left him with "a taste like a spoiled egg" (59)?

In the end, Ethan’s scheme was a success; the store was his, and the most important piece of property in town now lay under his name. The Hawley name would once again command respect in New Baytown. He had needed only to adopt the new morality for a moment, like a man trying on a different suit . . . The only "trouble with a well-made suit, it lasts too long" (233), a truth Baker knew only too well. Too late, Ethan realized that abandoning his entire code of ethics was not so simple a matter; even if he did return to his old principles, as if he had never strayed from them, his conscience would be forever marred by his indiscretions.

Not hat the rest of the world would ever notice. Maybe he’d got a little blood on his fingers, but Ethan had fought the fight; and more importantly, he’d won. "After all, in the end "it’s all dough, no matter how you get it" (91).

[The American Dream and Steinbeck's The Winter of Our Discontent]

      Steinbeck's novel The Winter of Our Discontent (1961) is a series of variations on the theme of success and what motivates men towards it, set in motion as the hero assesses the way the business world operates and how he might begin to take part in it. Reflecting back on his New England family's past fortune, and his father's loss of the family wealth, the hero, Ethan Allen Hawley, characterizes success in every era and in all its forms as robbery, murder, even a kind of combat, operating under 'the laws of controlled savagery.'

There is no doubt that business is a kind of war. Why not, then, make it all-out war in pursuit of peace? Mr. Baker and his friends did not shoot my father, but they advised him and when his structure collapsed they inherited. And isn't that a kind of murder? Have any of the great fortunes we admire been put together without ruthlessness? I can't think of any.

      To mobilize himself to succeed, Hawley must acknowledge his own animal ruthlessness, an ability to fight and kill masked by the conditions of his mundane life. He remembers a fleeting desire to destroy his brother-in-law during his final illness, of killing during the war, of slaughtering small animals as a boy. Then he launches his own career by destroying two other men: Marullo, the Sicilian grocer he works for in a store his family used to own, and Danny Taylor, his oldest friend. He anonymously reports Marullo to the Immigration office for illegal entry, and receives the store almost as a gift. Destroying Danny Taylor is a deeper betrayal, for Hawley still thinks of him -- grown into an alcoholic -- as a brother. His decision to 'succeed' is a decision to give up the ideal of brotherhood, and is thus an incontrovertible acknowledgement of the costs of success. Danny trades Ethan his family property (suitable for an airport) for $1,000, with which Danny can either buy a cure or enough liquer to kill himself. Both men know he will choose the latter course; Hawley becomes rich from his death.

I knew what I had done, and Danny knew it too.... Maybe it's only the first time that's miserable. It has to be faced. In business and politics a man must carve and maul his way through men to get to be King of the Mountain. Once there, he can be great and kind -- but he must get there first.

      Ethan Hawley's motives for engaging in business are complex, even tortured. Nowhere is there a sense of the simple delight in work and its intrinsic rewards that permeates earlier success stories. Now, once the bloody foundations of competition are acknowledged, an intricate series of rationalizations are brought into play. One is the social status money can bring, and Hawley justifies success as a means to an end:

I do not want, never have wanted, money for itself. But money is necessary to keep my place in a category I am used to and comfortable in.

More important is his family's need for comfort and social worth. Hawley doesn't want his wife to be 'poor Mary Hawley' any more. As he says:

Temporarily I traded a habit of conduct and attitude for comfort and dignity and a cushion of security. It would be too easy to agree I did it for my family because I knew that in their comfort and security I would find my dignity. But my objective was limited and, once achieved, I could take back my habit of conduct.

      In both books, then, [Steinbeck's and Weidman's] limited success is neccessary for the sake of one's family and the fulfillment that comes from providing for them, but the moral foundations of success in general are treated very critically. There are two consequences of this understanding of success in the taken-for-granted universe of these books; both represent something new. First, the old certainty that morality and success walk hand in hand is shattered. In its place enters moral relativism and doubt. Both books question the rational foundation of the social world. In Steinbeck's novel, for instance, Hawley thinks about the forces of progress in Baytown:

Now a slow, deliberate encirclement was moving on New Baytown, and it was set in motion by honorable men. If it succeeded, they would be thought not crooked but clever.... To most of the world success is never bad.... Strength and success -- they are above morality, above criticism.... The only punishment is for failure.

      A second consequence of the newly critical view of business success that appears in these novels is that the family and the private realm are simplified and idealized. In particular, the wife for whom the protagonist sacrifices his moral purity is bathed in a radiant light of wholesomeness, purity, and warmth. This suggests a moral arrangement that assigns different standards to family and work. In The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit these two spheres made conflicting demands on the hero's limited time and energy, but business was uninteresting rather than immoral. In Steinbeck's novel, business is evil, and this formulation creates a moral dilemma for Hawley that almost drives him to suicide.

     The moral and human costs of success are now clearly visible in a way foreign to the novels of the previous decade. Perceiving these costs, novelists accord a new importance to the familial contribution and personal fulfillment of the breadwinner. This marks a more privatistic moral justification for success than prevailed when the individual and the social organization progressed in lock step. The costs of success also compel Steinbeck's and Weidman's heros to engage in critical introspection and moral reflection about the social order; their search for a meaningful life marks them as representatives of a 'humanistic' formulation of the fulfillments to be gained by success.

Teaching as a profession.

The profession of teaching is one of the oldest in the world. And it is certainly one of the noblest (благородный). The art of teaching has suffered a revolutionary change. It has become highly specialized; its mystery is to be mastered. It is based not only on scholarship, but also on the right methods of teaching. Every good teacher will learn more about his subject every year, every week, every month if possible.  He must avoid the sort of feeling that there is nothing more for him to learn. There is always room for self-improvement.

A teacher must be kind and understanding but at the same thing firm. The pupils should feel that their teacher wants to help them, wants to improve, is interested in their growth, is sorry for their mistakes and pleased with their successes. The main task of the teacher isn’t in imparting knowledge but in stimulating the pupils’ minds. The teacher mustn’t   only instill his own opinions into the receptive mind if the pupils, but he must also teach him to think, to form his own opinions. His approach must be human and sympathetic.

One of the most important qualities of a good teacher is humor. The real purpose of humor in teaching is to link the teacher and the pupils through enjoyment. A good teacher is a creator of people. The teacher must treat different pupils differently. He must have a way with them.

To do this he must be a good psychologist. If he knows his pupils’ character he will be able to adapt his teaching to their differences.

State and private schools.

All state schools in Britain are free, and schools provide their pupils with books and equipment.

There are also in Britain private schools called independent schools. They have been growing in number and popularity. In state schools parents can choose to send their children to a nursery school or a pre-school playgroup to prepare them for the start of compulsory education. In state school children start primary school at 5-7 after they go to secondary schools called comprehensives, and at 16 pupils take a national exam called-General Certificate of Secondary Education.

Some pupils continue their studies in the sixth form at school or at sixth form collage, another way to continue studies to go to a collage of further education to study more practical diplomas. The most private schools prepare the children for the common entrance exam, which they take at the age of 11.This exam, is for entry into the best schools. The majority of independent secondary schools including public schools are single –sex, religious schools and schools ethic minorities.

British and Russian education.

In Britain children start going to school when they are five and continue studying until they are sixteen or older. Many children in Britain attend nursery school from the age of about three. Compulsory education begins at the age of five, when children go to primary school. Primary education lasts for six years. They attend the infant school from 5 to 7 and then junior school until they are eleven. In infant school children don’t have real classes. When children are 7 real studying begins.

Full-time education is compulsory up to the middle teenage years. There are three stages in education. The first stage is primary education; the second is secondary education, the third id further education at University or collage.

Before going to a primary school children receive nursery education (some children attend pre-school play-groups) it’s the first age of education.

Compulsory primary education begins at the age of 5 in England, Wales and Scotland and at 4 in Northern Ireland.  Children start their education in an infant school and move to a junior school at 7 years old. Pupils study different subjects (English, Math, Science, History, and Geography, music and Art). Over 80% of all primary schools are mixed.

The school year in England and Wales begins in September and continues into July. At this level children start to learn a modern foreign language. The course of studying at secondary school may lead to General Certificate of Secondary Education Qualifications. Those who stay at school after GCSE, study for 2 more years for Advanced level exams in 2 or 3 subjects.

A small proportion of children about 8% attend private or independent schools, which are not financed by state.

In Russia as I think education is guaranteed by the constitution. Children start going to school at 7. After 3 years of primary school classes pupils go on to secondary school. Primary and secondary schools together comprise eleven years of study.9 years of classes are compulsory. In the secondary pupils have studies in Russian literature, Math, History, computer programming. All schools in Russia are free. But in the main schools in Russia are comprehensive. After 11 years pupils have examinations and receive a high school diploma. Higher education begins at16 and lasts to 20. In the university the student will eventually specialize in one area of study such as science, math, history, literature and so on. At the end of four years of studying he or she will earn a Bachelor’s degree. After five years of studying they can receive diploma too.

How to be ill?

I think all of us hate being ill. As soon as we have a headache or a cold, or the first signs of flu coming on, we proceed to behave as if we were in the grip of some fatal illness which is supposed to indicate that we have developed into a fine art the ability to feel sorry for us.

For example my husband he loves being nursed and fussed over, he made a cold last a good week by a combination of carefully produced well-timed groans and grimaces. Of course he tried to suffer pain bravely, but made it quite clear. He was really good at it; he could melt the hardest female heart. He told me that he hadn’t wanted to be a bother to me. But I was over him full of concern and caresses, stoking his brow and destroying myself in an attempt to restore to his health. And at the end of it all I understood that he exploited a minor illness to good effect, and he took to his bed on some flimsy pretext. And I behaved like a ministering angel. And now I got a hang of it. And in addition, it is pleasure to get out of telling the neighbors about the hell I have been through, when my husband fussed over me.

The school of tomorrow.

I think that school helping us to develop our personality and character, teaching us about right and wrong, showing us how to get on with other people. And it is very important to study in the best school or collage or University. And it is all the more surprising that so many parents in the world choose to impose such abnormal conditions on their children- conditions, which they themselves wouldn’t put up with for a minute.

The school of tomorrow must be nothing less than a true version of society in miniature. Pupils teach how to get on with other people and I think that is the aim of education. And also they must learn many subjects as math, literature, foreign languages and so on.

And we always must remember one main idea: to make school fir the children-instead of making the child fit the school. Every teacher will have own special method of teaching. And everyone will have equal rights. Needless to say that school will provide the pupils with equipment and for my mind all schools will co-educational-it is the best way to learn.

The only thing that people are interested in today is earning more money.

We live in a materialistic society and are trained from our earliest years to be acquisitive. Our possessions, ”mine” and “yours” are clearly labeled from early childhood. When we grow old enough to earn a living, it doesn’t surprise us to discover that success id measured in terms of the money you earn. We spend the whole of our lives keeping up with our neighbors and with friends. If we buy a new car they is bound to buy a bigger and better one .The most amusing thing about this game is that our friend and all the neighbors who are struggling frantically to keep up with them are spending borrowed money kindly provided at a suitable rate of interest, of course, by friendly banks, insurance companies.

It’s not only in affluent societies that people are obsessed with the idea of making more money. Consumer goods (потребительские товары) are desirable (желанные) everywhere and modern industry deliberately sets out to create new markets. The wheels of industry must be kept turning.

This materialistic outlook has seriously influenced education. Fewer and fewer young people these days acquire knowledge only for its own sake. The demand for skilled personnel far exceeds the supply and big companies complete with each other to recruit students (вербовать студентов) before they have completed their studies. Tempting salaries (соблазнительная зарплата) and “fringe benefits”(дополнительные новости) are offered to them.

How much are you worth?

One of the most difficult questions to answer is how much a job is worth. We naturally expect that a doctor’s salary will be higher than a bus conductor’s wage. The doctor, the teacher, the engineer have in common is that they have devoted several years of their lives to studying in order to obtain the necessary qualifications for their professions. We feel instinctively that these skills and these years when they were studying instead of earning money should be rewarded.

Another factor we must take into consideration is how socially useful a man’s work is, regardless of the talents he may bring to it. Most people would agree that looking after the sick or teaching children more important, than, say selling second-hand cars or improving the taste of toothpaste by adding a red stripe to it.

You can argue that a man who does a job, which brings him personal satisfaction, is already receiving part of his recompense in the form of a so-called “psychic wage”. It’s significant that these jobs which are traditionally regarded as ”vocations”-nursing, teaching and the Church-continue to be poorly paid, while others carry financial rewards out of all proportion to their social worth. Although the amount of money that people earn is in reality largely determined by market forces, this shouldn’t   prevent us from seeking some way to decide on what is the right pay for the job. The highly qualified people carrying heavy responsibilities become disillusioned and might even end up by emigrating (so-called “brain drain»).

Private and state education.

There are 2 types of school in Britain: state and private.7% children go to private schools called independent. They have been growing in number and popularity.

Parents pay for these school and fees vary from 250 pounds. Most independent school called prep schools is because they prepare children for the Entrance Exam; it is for entry into the best schools and often necessary to put your name on a waiting list. The majority of independent secondary schools including public are single-sex, religious schools and schools for ethnic minorities.

All sate schools are free; they provide pupils with books and equipment. Parents can choose to send their children to a nursery school or a pre-school playgroup to prepare them for the start of compulsory education.

Children start primary school at 5 and continue until they are 11.After that go to secondary called comprehensives at 16 pupils take national exam called GCSE. And leave school if they with. Some continue studies in the sixth form at school or at college. The sixth form prepares pupils for a national exam called A-level. Other go to college of further education.

Co-education and single-sex schools.

A co-education school offers children nothing less than a true version of society in miniature. Boys and girls are given the opportunity to get to know each other to learn to live together from their years. And they can compare themselves with each other in terms of academic ability. When segregated boys and girls are made to feel that they a race apart. Rivalry between the sexes is fostered. The greatest contribution of co-education is the healthy attitude to life it encourages. Years of living together at school dispel illusions. I think that co-educational schools are the best way to learn.

Choosing a career.

Choosing a career is like any other activity; it is best to work to a plan. Too many people start looking for a specific job before thinking out their occupational aims. It is a good idea to begin by attempting to define in clear terms what your requirements are from a career.

This involves taking a realistic view of your strengths and weaknesses.

As for me, I have made up my mind to be a teacher. As my mother is a teacher she has made a great influence on my choice and I can say that this profession runs the family. My choice of this occupation didn't come as a sudden flash. I think that nowadays this profession is of great need and importance to our country. It is my aim to be a qualified specialist and to serve the interests of my country.

How to keep feet?

You know that it is very interesting topic for conversation especially for woman. And it is not easy to answer: how do you stay in good shape? I think that woman must always remember about her formal daily dozen and about her weight. As for me I never think about my shape. But my friend hates to be bulky and works hard at getting back into shape. She keep extra active, for example, she does hours of dog walking and jogs or plays golf. Another my friend prefers rowing and try to be more active all day. She is a weight-prone person and also is definitely in better control of her eating, but she thinks concentrated jogging is so boring. She enjoys swimming a swift twenty length. I know that woman steer clear of all fatty foods and sweets only to be in a good shape. And in addition I want to say that everyone person should remain just as the nature has created him.

What are the purposes of education?

We go to school, collage, and university to learn our language, foreign language and of course all the other subjects. Education helping us to develop our personality and character. It is very important teach us about right and wrong. And I think that in school we know how to get on with other people, because people are very different and everyone has his own temper. There are many subjects teach us about what is going on in the world today. For example: sociology, physiology and history.  And I think that the main aim of education is to get as good a job as possible. And the purpose of education helping with thinks you will need to know when you leave school.

How to have perfect interview?

It is very important to fine out what the company is like before apply for the job. First of all you need to write effective CV, try to make it brief and simple.

After discover as mush as you can about the interviewers.

Dress the part. Never keep your overcoat or a mac on during the interview- this will make you an outsider from the start.

You must think positively and confidently about yourself. Think and write down all the qualities you have to offer the company.

Be aware of you body language. Be assertive, smile, look the interviewer in the eye and give a firm handshake. Keep a balance of power throughout the interview. Don’t be too timid and at the same time don’t be overconfident or cheeky.

Keep calm before and during the interview. Always remember that nervousness often lets down.

Why do we still dice with death?

If asked, ”what are health decisions?» most of us answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making a whole range of decisions about our health which go beyond this limited area. for example whether or not to smoke, exercise, drive motorbike, drink alcohol regularly. The ways reach decisions and form attitudes about our health are only just beginning to be understood.

Smokers run double the risk of contracting heart disease, several times the risk of suffering from chronic bronchitis and at least 25 times the risk of lung (рак) cancer. Despite extensive press campaigns, which have regularly told smokers and car drivers the grave risks they are running, the number of smokers and seat belt wearers has remained much the same. Although the number of deaths from road accidents and smoking are well publicized, they have aroused little public interest.

The kind information tends to be relied on both by smoker and seat belt-wearer is anecdotal, based on personal experiences. What is needed is some way of changing people’s evaluations and attitudes to the risks of certain activities like smoking.

So a mass-media approach may work.  But it needs to be carefully controlled. Overall, the new awareness of problem of health decisions and behavior is at least “more hopeful sign for the future».

The Welfare state.

Every British citizen who is employed is obliged to pay weekly contribution to the national insurance and health schemes. An employer also makes a contribution for each of his employees and the Government too pays a certain amount. Its aim is tp prevent anyone from going without medical services, if he needs them, however poor he may be, to ensure that a person who is out of work shall receive a weekly sum of money to subsist on; and to provide a small pension for those who have reached the age of retirement.

Every one can register with a doctor of his choice and if he is ill he consult the doctor without having to pay for the doctor’s services, although he has to pay a small charge for medicines.

During illness the patient can draw a small amount every week, to make up for his lost wages. When a man is out of work, he may draw unemployment benefit until he finds work again; this he will probably do by going to a Job Center. If he is married, allowance he receives will be larger.

Mothers-to-be and children receive special benefits such as free milk or certain foodstuffs for which only a minimum charge is made. There are special benefits for certain people, such as the blind and the handicapped. Most people agree that there are still many improvement to be made in their national insurance and health schemes.

War and Peace. The greatest problems that have faced men throughout his history have been the problems of war and peace. In the XIX century and before war was quite common. It did not touch the majority of nations and was fought by profession

 

• 14:21 05 Июля 2016
  Российско-китайский медуниверситет откроет магистерскую программу по TCM
• 01:21 05 Июля 2016
  На форуме МГУ Россия и Китай обсудят научно-образовательное сотрудничество
• 11:00 04 Июля 2016
  Реморенко: "ЕГЭ-туризм" в России сходит на нет
• 10:52 04 Июля 2016
  Летняя российско-австрийская школа откроется в Москве
• 15:31 01 Июля 2016
  В СПбГУ могут воссоздать географический факультет

Заказать уникальную работу