Since the dawn of existence, we have always wanted to belong. For many people, Church has repeatedly been seen as a group worth belonging to. For others it is seen as a hopeless waste of time. Whatever your stance may be, I think we can agree that church attracts a lot of people to their ranks. From families who attend Sunday services with rigid punctuality to individuals looking for a new outlook on life, to teens who just want to have fun in a safe environment, church attracts a lot of unique interests. You may or may not share those same interests, but please have an open mind when reading this essay. In it we will examine a modern community church and see how this group fits into society.

While we can safely say that while everyone’s motive for going to church may be different, once you are there, you’re all part of the same family. My friend Lauren has been a long time member of the local Baptist church. When I asked her about her thoughts on church, she said that she enjoys going for the uplifting atmosphere, the relaxing music, the talk groups and the fact that she knows almost everyone there. Nowhere did she mention anything about the actual message of a church service. Nor did she ever tell me anything about her faith and how attending church has made it stronger. Is this a unique incident? I think not.

Apparently more and more people are beginning to use church as a social stomping ground. They are going to show off that new dress they just got or to gossip with friends. I have even seen people show up immediately after the service has ended, just in time to catch the chat time with fellow church members. That was their only reason for attending.

Now this is not always the case. For every show-off (or whatever you might call them) there are countless people who attend church because it is their sincere belief and duty as a Christian to do so. These people enjoy church for the message that is preached; they go to learn.

Now one of the many questions that may arise when discussing social group settings is the impact a group can have on an individual’s sense of identity. In this case, how does belonging to a church affect your outlook in other areas of life? For the most part, it appears that regular church attendees maintain the idea that they are good citizens and proud of it. When I asked my friend what impact belonging to a church had on her, she stated that it made her feel like she was doing something good for herself and for others. She continued, “I believe that going to church helps make up for some of the bad things I may have done that week, even the little things.” Now if you agree with this view, that’s up to you. Just be aware that many people out there would see this statement and scream “hypocrite!” They believe that if one of your main reasons for attending church is to make up for bad things you’ve done that past week then you should be ashamed. From what I’ve heard, some people don’t attend church just so they can avoid people like Lauren.

On another note, what if we put a church-going Christian and someone who doesn’t attend church side by side; you really wouldn’t be able to tell who is who just by looking at them. So that is where this social group is a little different from most others. There is no uniform of dress, or hairstyle or limitation reserved for any particular gender, age or race. It’s what happens on the inside that makes the difference.

Am I about to spread the stereotype that church attendees are better people in society? No, I wouldn’t do that. But, in a recent survey conducted by Pew Research Center, they found that “People who attend religious services weekly or more are happier (43% very happy) than those who attend monthly or less (31%); or seldom or never (26%).” We can always use plenty of happy people in society. Don’t you agree?

On the other hand, could attending church lessen someone’s identity of self? Well it goes without saying that if you are doing something against your will you can never expect to enjoy it. What about all the children who are figuratively (and sometimes literally) pulled into church by their parents? For some of them, it’s the most boring part of the week. For others it’s the foundation that will help them succeed in many other aspects of their lives.

Statistically, the later seems to be more likely. According to author Neil MacQueen, children who regularly attend church “improve their attitude at school and increase their school participation.” MacQueen also claims that church attendance will help children “rebound from depression 70% faster than non attendees.”

Obviously there are millions of different opinions on the benefit church groups have on society. I don’t think we will ever completely lay out all the pros and cons, but hopefully this analysis has sparked some interest in finding out whether or not church social groups are for you. When it comes down to whether you want to belong or not, one thing is certain; there isn’t an easier group to get into. All you do is show up and be open to discuss new things. There’s no secret handshake or test you have to take. Just show up and listen, then draw your own conclusions on whether church is a group worth belonging to.

“Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself”

Should teachers make more or less money based on the performance of their students? If so, how would we objectively measure something as subjective as performance? Some would say that standardized test scores are the key metric to base teachers’ pay off of. But honestly, how can we live with the thought that academic achievement boils down to a pile of answers on a sheet of paper? Isn’t the entire goal of academics to open minds and spark creativity? Then why is the school system so overly obsessed with teaching for the test and frankly, for testing at all? What this accomplishes is nothing more than the closing of young minds and the construction of aptly-named learning disorders for a myraid of reasons.

As one of the brightest minds in history once said, “”What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of the child.” In my opinion, George Bernard Shaw was correct in the observation that knowledge cannot be forced upon us, but rather we must seek it at our own pace, in our own way. How then can one come to enjoy the passionate pursuit of knowledge? This at first seems like a tough question to answer, but we need only return to our earliest years.

Have you ever seen the curiosity of a young child who endlessly questions those around him or her? Surely you’re familiar with the endless nagging of children who can ask an infinite loop of “why” questions such as “why is the sky blue? why is it raining? why can’t I eat ice cream for dinner?” and on and on. This sense of curiosity is somehow lost somewhere between elementary and middle school. Children are told that they cannot and should not be so inquisitive. They are labeled as foolish for asking “stupid questions” and they socialize among each other along the lines of what is cool (with asking questions being low on the list of coolness).

What I am getting at here is that if we ever want to fix our broken indoctrination “education” system, we need to simply let children be children and embrace their curiosity. The pedagogy of individuals such as John Holt and John Taylor Gatto are the ideal places to start in exploring how best to magnify and direct curiosity and the acquisition of knowledge. Homeschooling, or more specifically, unschooling is an ideal method for accomplishing this. I was unschooled from 4th grade onward and I’m very proud of that.

Will it work for everyone in every situation? No, of course not. I was blessed with two great parents who focused on giving me the resources I needed to learn from the world around me. This brings us to the other part of the equation: education begins at home. That is where we should be focusing our energy first and foremost, because I guarantee you that even in the worst of the worst school districts, the children with a sound and secure family backing are going to outperform on average those children in which this is nonexistent.

Having digressed slightly from the original topic, let me conclude by saying that performance-based compensation for teachers will work if implemented correctly. By that I mean that it should emphasize such factors as what parents think about their child’s teacher, how active their child is in after-school activities, how well the student can articulate what he or she likes about the particular class, their take-home portfolio, the ability of the teacher (as rated by a professional educator in-class) and finally test scores. Yes, test scores are on the list, but they should be least important due to their subjective nature.

The worst thing we can do to students is quantify them and attach the stigma of a letter or a number grade to them. That type of behavior is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum of learning and that would only lead to more drones vying for unthinking jobs in an ever changing world.

Understanding a Central Theme in a Classic Work

In Tennessee William’s memory play titled “The Glass Menagerie,” we are introduced to several characters who each have a unique way of escaping from the reality of their mundane lives. All three members of the Wingfield family use a symbolic placeholder for what they truly want in life. Even the apartment in which Tom, Amanda and Laura Wingfield reside is reminiscent of this nature to get away, since the fire escape located directly outside their door is used a great deal in the comings and goings of the play. Just as the name implies, the fire escape allows the characters to physically remove themselves from the flames of their heated arguments. Moreover, “a blown-up photograph of the father [Mr. Wingfield] hangs on the wall of the living room” (1687). Since Mr. Wingfield was the only character of the play who actually “escaped” with no strings attached, he represents the possibility of freedom. However, at the same time, his absence may also be a cause of great grief to his family members and thus he may also represent the source of their problems. If he would have remained as the breadwinner of the family, maybe Tom, Amanda and Laura would not be so desperate to find an outlet for escape.

Whatever the cause may be, the issue of escapism remains strong in the hearts and minds of Tom, Amanda and Laura. Even the name of the play suggests this, as Laura lives in a world of her own, focused around her glass menagerie, where perfect beauty and harmony is reflected upon the delicate surfaces of her animals. Laura does not ask for much, but rather accepts her dull life and seems to enjoy her fantasy world more than any other character.

As for the protagonist of the story, Tom Wingfield, he wishes to free himself from the figurative chains of his dull factory job and his stressful family situation. Tom longs for adventure and excitement and for the time being, he satisfies his cravings by frequenting the movie theater where he watches actors live the life that he has always dreamed of but could never achieve, due to his family obligations. Tom must carry a great burden as the only remaining male member of the Wingfield household. He must support not only himself, but also his abandoned mother and his introverted and slightly handicapped sister. Early in Scene Four, while talking with Laura about a stage magician Tom relates, “the wonderfullest trick of all was the coffin trick. We nailed him into a coffin and he got out of the coffin without removing one nail…. There is a trick that would come in handy for me—get me out of this two-by-four situation…” (1698). In other words, Tom wished to leave his family behind so that he may live his own life to the fullest, yet at the same time he did not want to hurt them or upset the apple cart.

As for Amanda, (both Tom and Laura’s mother) her fantasy world consists of living vicariously though Laura. It is Amanda who constantly reminds Laura of the importance of finding a proper “gentleman caller,” or rather, how to be found by one. Amanda loves to reminisce back to her days of youth as a southern belle. In Scene Six she states, “all of my gentleman callers were sons of planters and so of course I assumed that I would be married to one and raise my family on a large piece of land with plenty of servants” (1715). Unfortunately, Amanda ended up marrying “a telephone man who fell in love with long distance” (1715).

Amanda’s plan to find Laura a gentleman caller seems to backfire in her face, since the more she pushes, the more Laura pulls away. Laura does not have anything significant going for her in terms of education, career possibilities or romances, but as long as she has her glass menagerie she’s fine. Her other outlets of escape are also solitary adventures, whether she is visiting the penguins at the zoo or viewing the tropical flowers in the Jewel Box. Like the penguins, Laura may wish to fit in with the crowd, but deep down she knows that her true nature will always be one-of-a-kind in a similar fashion to the rare flowers.

Even though the Wingfield characters that we have discussed thus far seem to exhibit the strongest desires of escapism, the final character we have yet to mention, Jim O’Connor, also wishes to escape from his current situation. Jim believes that by studying public speaking and radio engineering he will transform himself into an icon of success in the television industry, which is something he has always wanted. Jim seems to be the most focused of all of the characters, due to his logical vision of the future. Nevertheless, his desire to be successful in both business and in life is a subtle way of escaping from the reality of working in a shoe factory.

In conclusion, we see now that “The Glass Menagerie” is filled with characters who long for something that they believe is better, but it is only Mr. Wingfield and Tom who actually set their plan in motion and “escape.” As for Mr. Wingfield, he is but a distant mystery. For Tom however, we see in the final moments of the play just how much he is haunted by his decision to leave home. In the last scene, he says, “Oh Laura, Laura, I tried to leave you behind me, but I am more faithful than I intended to be! I reach for a cigarette, I cross the street, I run into the movies or a bar, I buy a drink, I speak to the nearest stranger—anything that can blow your candles out” (1729). Although he still tries, it is difficult for Tom to completely move on as his father and that’s probably a good thing, because in reality, if all we ever do is run from the people we love, where does that get us other than in a worse predicament than before? Hopefully Tom, Amanda and Laura eventually realized that their best form of “escape” would have been to bond together as a family united upon the common goal of supporting each other in all that life has to offer.

Works Cited

Anthology of American Literature. Ed. George McMichael and James Leonard. 9th ed. Vol. II. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2007.

It is not unusual in life to demand more than what is available at any given time, be it financially motivated or influenced by something deeper. However, rarely do we act upon our urges and desires to actually obtain (or at least try to obtain) the objects of our affection, without first consulting the social landscape in order to determine the consequences of our actions and how our peers will perceive such actions.

In the Port Huron Statement, discussed herein, just such a demand is addressed. But rather than be a demand for more wealth or status, it is a plea that our society should wake up and be moved to action. However, the sad truth is that even after the 47 years since this eye-opening document was penned, our nation still faces many of the same problems if not more. One must then wonder what went wrong, since surely the ideas and ideals outlined in the Port Huron Statement would bring great change to society—if only society was willing to listen. In my humble opinion, the fault lies with society’s willingness to accept the status quo rather than cut against the grain of accepted behavior and risk becoming labeled as a “radical.”

This truly is a sad phenomenon, because I strongly believe that if we lived in the utopian vision of the Port Huron Statement’s ideals, we would not be at war this very moment (at the national end of the spectrum) and we would not be struggling to work just for the sake of working. In the land of a participatory democracy, our status symbols would evolve from the newest cars and biggest houses to the most noble ideas and most creative ways of expression. As the Statement puts it, life would be “generally organized with the well-being and dignity of man as the essential measure of success” (Bloom & Breines, 2003, p. 56).

Upon my first reading of the Statement, I was left wondering what just happened; was it about the civil rights movement specifically or something even bigger? After a second, third, and even fourth reading, it suddenly dawned on me that the views expressed were not about any single social problem past or present, but rather they were about the process in which we arrive at these problems and how we can attempt to dig ourselves out of them. The Statement is a method of sorts, in which a new way of thinking is outlined; one that only seems new because of the institutionalized attempt to drill it out of us in the compulsory school system and in the workplace. Many words can be used to describe this new way of thinking, such as: individualism, compassion, sympathy, concern, involvement, knowledge, vigilance, struggle, etc.

Nevertheless, the Port Huron Statement shows us that the vocabulary of our action (or lack thereof) is instead centered on things such as: apathy, complacency, acceptance, groupthink, status, wealth, fear, selfishness, etc. Therefore, the social issues and problems the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) were most concerned with involved no single social issue, although there is no doubt that the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s was the catalyst that got their members fired up. The SDS simply wanted us to wake up to the fact that we’ve been living a false life, filled with false symbols to represent our false happiness. Their solution to this colossal problem is as not an easy fix; but it is a smart one that I strongly believe in.

As the Statement professes, the SDS sought to return the center of power to the hands of the people through the instrument of the university campus. The reasoning laid out for why the university is such an important part of any social change is plain and simple; essentially, it is not only a crucial institution that has withstood the test of time, but it is the hub of knowledge in any society, which “makes the university functionally tied to society in new ways, revealing new potentialities, new levers for change” (Bloom & Breines, 2003, p. 60).

In summary, the SDS believed that the values most important to us were based around the concepts of “reason, freedom, and love” (Bloom & Breines, 2003, p. 54). They rightfully sought to unlock the human independence that lies dormant within all of us, and to open our eyes to the path that we were born to travel upon; the path leading away from the battlefield of hateful oppression and leading towards the ivory tower of compassionate creativity and participatory democracy.

References

The Port Huron Statement. (2002). In A. Bloom & W. Breines (Eds.), “Takin’ it to the streets” A Sixties Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

With the internet becoming more functional everyday, people all over the world are finding new uses for this incredible medium in their daily lives. Several years ago if you told someone you blogged them on MySpace you probably would have gotten some strange glances. Now these terms, and many more like them, are becoming a routine part of our vocabulary. Only decades ago you would have invoked some stupendous looks just by uttering the terms “chat room,” instant message” or “web blog.” Today these familiar terms have one thing in common. They all relate to virtual communities made possible by the internet.

In this essay, we will explore the reality of virtual communities. You will see why I strongly believe that there is nothing inherently “fake” about this relatively new medium and why a virtual society deserves equal appreciation when compared to communities outside of the internet. I will also share my views on why some virtual communities can improve our way of life and how we do business far beyond what any “real world” medium can do.

In order to understand virtual communities we must first understand what makes a community of any sort. According to one dictionary definition, a community can be viewed as “a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists” (Dictionary.com). Of course this is just one definition of a word that can have much ambiguity. In the context with which we are dealing, I believe this is the closest definition we will encounter. As for the definition of virtual, I mean the online world or simply the internet.

Long before the advent of the internet, it was difficult to grasp the concept of a virtual world. All society knew were the communities they lived in or visited.  A community was seen as something that was geographically located, such as neighborhoods, towns, schools and places of business. Over time there were changes to this definition. As travel got easier, communities got larger. Also, with better forms of long distance communication, people discovered that even if they weren’t geographically located in the same spot as someone else with similar interests, they could still converse with ease.

The internet took this form of communication to a global scale. For the first time in history, millions of people could connect, share, explore, and interact with each other regardless of whether they’re in Texas or Tokyo, Atlanta or Arizona. If you think about it, one thing every human being has in common is that we all reside on the same planet. So in effect, what the internet did was simply open a door that was already there. Let it be called “The Community of Earth Dwellers.” We just didn’t have a form of communication available to access that door prior to the internet revolution. But this is still just the tip of the iceberg and I can’t wait to see what else technology has in store for us.

Ok, now that we’re on the same page about the grand visions of virtual communities, let’s analyze some examples. There are many different reasons to belong to a virtual community. Maybe you have an illness and want to discuss it with people who are affected by it too. Maybe you’re a huge Steelers fan, but you moved to Florida and want to talk with some of your fellow fans back in Pittsburg. Maybe you want to share your poetry with poetry lovers from every country on earth. These are just a few of a seemingly endless array of reasons for participating in a virtual community. Also, your level of participation can vary. Usually when people first find a new virtual community, (an online message board in this case) they don’t immediately jump right into the conversation. It appears that most people just watch what is being said for a little while before interjecting their own opinions. These people are known in the virtual world as “lurkers.” First you have to familiarize yourself with the group and its parts before you can start interacting; that’s just common sense.

After getting out of the “lurking” stage, you begin to make judgments on the group and its contents. If these judgments are positive, or if you deem it applicable, this is where the interaction really begins. As you become more familiar with every stroke of the keyboard and click of the mouse, it is easy to forget that you probably haven’t met any of these people in the “real world” and maybe you never will. Does this take away from your experience? No! That’s like saying that driving a car takes away from the experience of walking everywhere. You can get the same thing done both ways. The car simply gives you more options, speed and convenience.

On this same note we must remember what makes human beings so different from all other forms of life; it is our ability to interact, communicate and form connections with each other. No matter how you look at it, all progress from the discovery of fire onward was made possible by team work, even if it was in the smallest way imaginable. This interaction is the heart of a community. It’s the fire of the conversation that keeps the heart beating. No wonder the why the words “communicate” and “community” sound so alike! So what is wrong with taking this idea and using an electronic means to put it into action?

In some cases, the online medium can be a great benefit. For example, look at the online auction community known as eBay. The idea of an auction is to have as many people as possible bid on an item, thus driving the selling price as high as possible. Before eBay and the Internet, auctions were only as large as the number of seats in an auction house. Therefore the number of bids (and maximum price to be paid) was always limited to that scale. What eBay did was figuratively knock down the walls of the auction house and allow millions of people to view and bid on the items. Many folks believe eBay has created a near-perfect sales platform, where supply meets demand at the exact price the market will pay. The kicker is that thanks to the internet, this happens on a global level with ease. The point is that with huge virtual communities such as eBay, we can actually buy and sell from one another with far more ease and at more realistic prices than ever before.

To illustrate another benefit of virtual communities, let’s explore one of the groups I belong to: www.MuscleAndFitness.com. This huge site is devoted to men and women who love to workout, eat right and stay healthy. The message boards are my favorite part of the site. I routinely visit to find new workouts, healthy eating tips and more. How could anyone ever get all this information from one source? It is only possible to have a wealth of knowledge about a subject as intricate as fitness when you combine the collective thoughts of hundreds or thousands of enthusiasts.  Do we all have to be looking at each other in the same room? No, it is quite possible for the same amount of interaction to occur online.

We all know that the internet is one of the fastest growing technologies in the history of computing. What does this mean for virtual communities? Well I believe we will see an unimaginable increase in the way we interact online. Words on a message board will be a thing of the past. Soon we will be so immersed by the advances of technology that there will be no argument on whether online communities can be considered real or not. With the incorporation of more audio and even 3D video, content will simply look and feel so real that it won’t be questioned. Maybe this will take some of the anonymity away from the online world and make those who are used to the classic ideas of community more likely to give it a try.

We live in a great age of convenience and things will continue to improve. Who would have imagined a day where you can think of any subject on earth, search for it, and find a wealth of information from multiple sources all in a few minutes time? If you still haven’t found what you’re looking for, just join into the conversations in one of the virtual communities related to the subject.

Expanding on that note, who would think there would be an age where families can stay connected all over the world, with audio, video and text? A family is one of the simplest forms of a community. Who said that leaving home to move into the world meant that you had to give up your place in this community? You shouldn’t have to. For it is partially with the foundation of our families that we become who we are; both our individual identities and our collective views are shaped by these interactions. Virtual or not, this interaction can continue and in my opinion, it will help us more than it will hurt us.

In closing, I hope this essay has enlightened you to further explore virtual communities and determine whether or not you agree with my points. The fact remains that no matter how different our opinions may be, virtual communities are here to stay. How much they are shaping our world is obvious, but how much they shape your world is ultimately up to you. Choose wisely.

Works Cited

“Community.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 Feb. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/community>.

The Internet has impacted our lives in more ways than we can describe and yet we seldom know the names and faces behind the brands, products and services that made it all possible. Everyday, we check our email, buy gifts, track stock prices, read news articles and watch videos all thanks to a relatively few number of individuals who took the first leap into an unknown and unproven abyss. One of those individuals was a 30 year-old Harvard MBA who revolutionized the world of retail and in doing so became one of the first Internet billionaires. His name is Jeff Bezos and his company is Amazon.com. This is Jeff’s story, which chronicles his amazing path to fame and fortune as the founder of Amazon.com.

Born on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Jeffery Preston Bezos showed an amazing aptitude for math and science from a very young age. Jeff’s mother realized this one day when she found her son trying to dismantle his crib with a screwdriver because he wished to sleep in a “grown-up bed.” Jeff was only three years old at the time (Garty 14). This ever-present sense of curiosity followed Jeff throughout his entire life. He excelled in school and was often fascinated by mechanical objects and puzzles. One of his favorite toys at school was a motorized cube which contained moving mirrors. This “infinity cube” kept Jeff busy for hours as he figured out how it worked. Eventually he bought his own mirrors and constructed his own motor so that he could have his very own infinity cube at home (Spector 3).

Jeff and his family moved several times during his younger years. In 1982, the family settled in Florida and Jeff attended Palmetto High School in Miami. He excelled in all subjects and received numerous awards, including the Best Science Student Award, Best Math Student Award, the Miami Herald Silver Knight Science Award and a trip to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. This last prize was a result of writing a winning paper titled, “The Effect of Zero Gravity on the Aging Rate of the Common Housefly” (Byers 18). When Jeff graduated from high school as Valedictorian in 1982, he was at the very top of his class, which consisted of 680 students. Everyone around him sensed that he would go on to accomplish great things in life.

Following high school, Jeff attended Princeton University where he graduated in 1986 with a 4.2 average and a degree in Computer Science (Byers 21). Now his opportunities in the world of business and technology were limitless, as almost every leading company wanted him to join their ranks. While working for a large banking company, Jeff eventually earned his MBA from Harvard which added to his already impressive list of credentials. However, he was never completely happy with the prospect of working for someone else, since he always felt somewhat held back. Jeff wanted to be his own boss and live the adventurous life that his mind craved.

In 1994, while working for a Wall Street firm, he was given the perfect opportunity to make that wish a reality. His employer asked him to research potential Internet business opportunities, which were a relatively new concept at the time. Jeff conducted methodical and detailed research and found that Internet usage was increasing by an astonishing rate of 2,300 percent per year.

Jeff immediately knew he was onto something big and he knew now was the best time to take action. Still, Jeff didn’t know how to maximize the business potential of the Internet, since it was such a new concept. He only had a vague idea that it could be used to host an online product catalog with a huge selection of items for sale, but he didn’t know what items would work best. After conducting more research, Jeff found one product that stood out from the rest and seemed perfect for Internet retail. He would open an online bookstore. Books seemed like a perfect choice, since the publishing industry was growing at a great pace, books were easy to stock, easy to ship and there were already three million titles in the market, which added to the variety of what was available to customers. It was time for Jeff to get his plan into action.

Amazon.com was officially incorporated on July 5, 1994. Jeff wanted the name of his company to reflect his vision of creating the largest and most well-stocked store in the world. Therefore, he chose the name of the largest river in the world, which also conveniently starts with the letter “A” thereby placing it near the top of most alphabetical search engine results and directories (Byers 46). To this day, Amazon.com continues to live up to its name, with current revenues of almost $15 billion and an unfathomable assortment of products to choose from.

For Jeff Bezos however, the road to profitability has not been an easy one. Many business professionals claimed that Amazon.com was doomed to fail from the start, because too much money was going out and not enough was coming in. Instead of growing at a slow and steady pace that was tailored to follow profitability, Jeff attempted a risky model of rapid expansion that was meant to corner the market before competitors could take away any business. Jeff knew that Amazon.com had to be the first and most well-known bookseller on the Internet if it ever was to survive. After that, the company could begin to worry about profitability. Jeff and his associates referred to this technique as the “Get Big Fast” model of business and that tagline eventually became an inside mantra of the company. Finally, in the last quarter of 2002, Amazon made its first-ever profit (at a meager penny per share) and has ever since remained profitable.

Jeff based the Amazon.com business philosophy around one primary focus: customer satisfaction. To this day he believes that nothing matters more than making sure the customer is satisfied. Only then will there be repeat business and referrals. For Jeff, this is a vital requirement for success in the world of business. He has accomplished this sense of ultimate satisfaction by tailoring the Amazon.com homepage to the unique interests of each visitor. The website remembers your name, your past purchases, your favorite items and your billing and shipping information. All of this is meant to simulate (or enhance) the experience of visiting a real-world neighborhood bookstore. Coupled with an outstanding team of customer service representatives, this is the successful formula that has driven Amazon.com to profitability.

In closing, Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com both have a lot of life ahead of them. Jeff continues to serve as CEO, president and chairman, with no plans on stepping down any time soon. This is just the beginning and it is certain that Amazon.com will continue to revolutionize new markets with each passing year. Today, Amazon.com offers a wide variety of products and services, from golf clubs to automobiles and everything in between. As for Jeff Bezos, whose net worth is currently estimated at $8.7 billion, he continues to privately support various charities both through Amazon.com auctions and other organizations, however he usually does so without disclosing the details. For example, Jeff donated Amazon.com stock worth an estimated $1 million to one or more charities in 2006, but the specifics are unknown.

What we do know is that Jeff introduced us to a new way of conducting business and for that he will always be remembered. This was made possible due to his outspoken vision of working hard, having fun and making history. He’s definitely done all of these things and much more. As Amazon.com races down the e-commerce superhighway, we can only speculate what will be next for both the company and its founder. Whatever the future holds, we can rest assured that with Jeff at the wheel, there will always be bigger and better surprises around every corner.

Works Cited

Byers, Ann. Jeff Bezos: the Founder of Amazon.Com. New York: Rosen, 2007.

Garty, Judy. Jeff Bezos: Business Genius of Amazon.Com. Berkeley: Enslow, 2003.

Spector, Robert. Amazon.Com: Get Big Fast. New York: Harper, 2002.

Due to the rapid growth of the Internet in the 1990s, we have seen an influx of web companies come and go over the years. Some were far too bent on turning a quick profit and failed to satisfy their customers. Others simply imitated already established companies, and because of their bland approach to business, they failed as well. But, somewhere in the mix of things emerged a few solid, innovative, and well developed ideas based around satisfying customer needs while generating a healthy profit. Names like eBay, Amazon and iTunes started out as just such ideas and now they are household names. However, there is one company that far surpasses routine innovation and leadership, that has built its mark on the Internet landscape with the motto “Don’t be evil.” That company is Google and as this paper explains, in the short span of just ten years, Google has become the “King of the Web” with no plans to step down any time soon.

Looking back at the inception of Google, something interesting stands out from the very beginning. Google was not originally created as a business venture; it was a purely academic research project between two Stanford University graduate students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, in January of 1996. Brin and Page worked countless hours developing a complex algorithm that would later be known as “PageRank” that the Google search engine would use to rank websites based on their relevance. Up to that point, the majority of search engines available were slow, clunky and relied on the simple concept of returning search results based on the number of times a searched keyword or key phrase was found in a given page. When Brin and Page realized they were onto something huge, they decided to expand Google beyond academic research. In 1998, Brin and Page officially incorporated Google and began looking for office space and employees to fill it. Eventually, the company settled in Mountain View, California, in a massive office complex that is aptly named the “Googleplex.” Additionally, Google has over 60 field offices worldwide.

Google is a one-of-a-kind company because their target market is so diverse. They do not appeal to one particular group, but rather, to a worldwide user base that is hungry for rapid access to a vast array of information. Google can capitalize on this market by giving their users what they want and even some of what they didn’t know they wanted. This is made possible through the technology of content-based targeted advertising. For example, if a user searches for “iPhone accessories,” they will see textual advertisements that are only related to iPhone accessories in addition to their organic (normal) search results. Because of this type of targeting, Google can allow advertisers to deliver products and services to exactly the right people, nearly every time. This process actually makes advertising useful, not only for businesses, but for users too, since it is related to what they are searching for in the first place.

With all of this being said, it would be difficult to pin Google down to only one target market or only one product or service. While it is true that Google started out as a simple search engine and nothing else, these days the company has transformed itself into an Internet giant by making several smart moves and acquisitions, such as the purchases of YouTube and Blogger. Google now offers everything from free website hosting to image editing software and everything in between. Other services include email, blogs, videos, news, weather, movie showtimes, book searches, photo searches, price comparisons, word processing software, shopping cart software, local maps, directions, global satellite imagery, phone-based local info, instant messaging, groups, translation tools, print advertising, social bookmaking services and much more. If a new trend opens up, Google is one of the first to explore it, with the idea of getting people hooked on a free tool or service, so that they can eventually deliver relevant ads to a huge user base.

By now it should be clear that Google’s target market is immense. The Google homepage is the second most frequently visited page on the Internet and Google controls over 65% of the U.S. Internet search market and all of this comes out of a company that is a mere 12 years old. No wonder Google has been called the “fastest growing company in the history of the world” by a British newspaper. Their market capitalization of almost $170 billion speaks for itself.

Nevertheless, Google is not a perfect company and if they’re not careful, they could very well lose their place of Internet dominance. Most recently, there has been talk of a projected acquisition of Yahoo by software giant Microsoft. Since Yahoo Search is the second most popular search engine and Microsoft’s Live Search is not far behind, the combination of both companies would finally give Google a viable competitor in the search market. At the time of this writing, it is unsure whether or not the Yahoo/Microsoft deal will go through or not, but regardless, Google needs to work extra hard to prevent this from happening if they want to retain their lead. I would suggest to Google that they strike their own deal with either Yahoo or Microsoft to counteract the threat of both companies combining. Billions of dollars are at stake here and Google needs to act fast to stay profitable in an increasingly competitive world.

In another field, I would suggest that Google should think long and hard about the implications of controlling such a vast amount of information and personal data. There is a growing sense among the population that Google is slowly becoming a “Big Brother” of George Orwell’s 1984 fame. This may or may not be intentionally the case by Google, but when we think about it, Google knows almost everything about its users. For the average user, who has a Google-based email account and makes use of a good portion of Google’s other services, it is possible to know a great deal about that individual. Google knows what they search for, what’s in their email, how much time they spend online, what ads they click on, where they live, and other detailed information. Google then stores this information indefinitely in order to track its user’s web activity. Concerned individuals have referred to Google as a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Therefore, if the folks at Google intend to stay true to their motto of “Don’t be evil,” they better be prepared to defend their privacy practices. That is vital if they hope to remain profitable in the years to come.

Whether or not Google takes my suggestions, they have a lot of good things going for them. We’ll now take a more detailed look at Google’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Obstacles and Threats:

SWOT Analysis of Google, Inc.

From looking at the SWOT analysis of Google, it is clear that while the company is not perfect, there are many opportunities that could very well keep Google ahead of the pack for many years to come. Nevertheless, a company could have all the opportunities in the world and still fail because they didn’t act on them in time. That is why it is vital to have a top-shelf management team when dealing with an industry that can potentially change dramatically overnight. Fortunately, Google has just the right type of upper management who realize the urgency of actions over words.

From the moment Sergey Brin and Larry Page began thinking about Google as a corporate venture, they understood that while they may possess the technical skills needed to run the company, they didn’t have a great deal of business knowledge or business connections. Therefore, Brin and Page agreed to bring in an outsider, who would act as Chairman and CEO. This setup would still allow Brin and Page to have equal discretion in the decision-making process, while insuring that nothing from the business side of things would be overlooked. The person Brin and Page chose for this difficult job was Dr. Eric Schmidt, who formally worked as Chief Technology Officer of Sun Microsystems and later as CEO of Novell. Brin, Page, and Schmidt run Google as a “triumvirate,” which is a type of management style composed of three powerful individuals each with an equal vote (Battelle 133).

Running a company as a triumvirate usually has more benefits than drawbacks, but only if the three individuals can get along with each other. For Google, that doesn’t seem to be a problem, since Brin and Page have been friends since college and Schmidt is a seasoned professional who is excellent at keeping personal issues out of the business environment. When considering which five characteristics the Google team should have, there are many possibilities, but most important in my humble opinion, is the ability to work together in a group without bumping heads. To disagree in business is normal, only if it is done with a professional approach. Secondly, I believe it is necessary for Brin, Page, and Schmidt to stay on top of new technology and business news. Thirdly, it is always a good idea to remember the importance of customer satisfaction and put the customer first. Fourthly, a good leader motivates their employees to think outside the box. Among a huge amount of other work benefits, the Google team does this by allowing engineers to use 20% of their time for the development of their own ideas and creations. Finally, a good leader stays committed to excellence. The Google team strives for the very best in everything they do and they’re very careful not to release a finished project until it has undergone rigorous testing.

In closing, it should now be clear that the three leaders at the top of Google possess all of the necessary characteristics of outstanding business leaders. Sometimes it seems like Google may be on the wrong track or that the company is spread pretty thin, but the guys at the top are too smart for that to be the case. As Schmidt once said, “We try very hard to look like we’re out of control. But in fact the company is very measured. And that’s part of our secret” (Ignatius). It’s that type of logic that keeps all of Google’s competitors guessing, while Google reaps the sweet rewards of success.

Works Cited

Battelle, John. The Search. New York: Portfolio, 2005.

“Corporate Information – Company Overview.” Google. 20 Mar. 2008. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.google.com/corporate/index.html>.

“Corporate Information – Google Management.” Google. 07 Apr. 2008. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html>.

“Google as Big Brother.” Google Watch. 23 Mar. 2005. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html>.

Ignatius, Adi. “Meet the Google Guys.” Time. 12 Feb. 2006. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158956,00.html>.

Vise, David A., and Mark Malseed. The Google Story. New York: Delta, 2005.

The infamous man who became known worldwide as Pancho Villa was born on June 5, 1878, as Doroteo Arango, in Río Grande, Mexico. At a young age, Villa assisted his parents on their farm and soon became the head of the household after his father died unexpectedly. When he was 16, he shot and killed a wealthy landowner who attempted to harass his sister. This started the vicious cycle of Villa’s life as a bandit and a man on the run. It is presumed that during this time as a fugitive, Villa changed his name from Doroteo Arango to Francisco Villa in order to evade the authorities.

By the time he was 20, Villa had worked various odd jobs, including numerous positions as a miner. On the side, however, Villa earned a living by selling stolen cattle and later formed a gang of outlaws and made money by robbing the wealthiest members of society. While many people consider Villa to be an outlaw, others consider him a revolutionary and even a modern-day version of Robin Hood, since he was known for his generosity to the poor.

While living as a fugitive, Villa participated in a successful uprising against Porfirio Díaz, who was the Mexican dictator at the time. Since Villa was an extremely good fighter, he was promoted to the rank of colonel in the uprising movement. In 1912, another uprising occurred, which displaced Villa and his gang and attempts at his life were made numerous times. For a brief time span, Villa fled to the United States, but eventually he settled in Mexico and became a General during the Mexican Revolution.

Villa is probably best known for his raid on the border-town of Columbus, New Mexico. On the night of March 9, 1916, Villa and approximately 500 or 600 revolutionaries raided the town and set many of the buildings on fire. In response, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson sent over 10,000 troops to Mexico in order to locate Villa in what was called the “Mexican Expedition.” They never found him.

In 1920, Villa accepted a deal from the Mexican government, in which he would lay down his arms in return for 25,000 acres of land and an annual salary of a general. He used much of the land and money to support the poor people of his country. He founded a bank and made loans to farmers and also built a school for the children who lived on his land. Villa studied new methods of farming and attempted to renew the troubled Mexican economy through agrarian reform. Many people believe that Villa would have made great progress in raising the standards of living for the poor working class throughout Mexico, had his life not been cut short.

At the age of 45, Pancho Villa was assassinated on the morning of June 20, 1923. He was on his way to the christening of his friend’s baby, when seven armed gunmen opened fire and killed Villa and five of his followers. The seven gunmen were never identified, although it was later discovered that Villa’s assassins had used government-issued bullets.

Works Cited

Katz, Friedrich. The Life and Times of Pancho Villa. New York: Stanford UP, 1998.

“Pancho Villa Biography.” Infoplease. Pearson Education. 14 Oct. 2008 <http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/panchovilla.html>.

“Pancho Villa Info Page.” Diversity / Multicultural resources. Michigan State University. 14 Oct. 2008 <http://www.lib.msu.edu/diversity/villa.htm>.

Rath, Brad. “The Personal History of Pancho Villa and Its Effects on Mexican History.” Historical Text Archive. 14 Oct. 2008 <http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=166>.

There are few discussions that result in as much heated debate as those that revolve around the use of the death penalty. Although the concept of taking an individual’s life for the commission of a crime has been around since the dawn of organized civilization, it is not something that can be easily agreed upon. Why is it that some people oppose the death penalty, while others strongly support it? Does the death penalty work in deterring crime, while punishing the offender for the crime that has been committed? What are the chances that an innocent person will get sentenced to death?

These are just some of the questions that will be discussed in this paper. None of them have simple answers; for if that were the case, there would be no need for this paper in the first place. Therefore, this analysis on the death penalty does not claim to be a definitive resolution on the subject. Rather, this paper is intended to serve as an eye-opener to the multitude of different viewpoints on capital punishment. Only then can one make an educated decision based upon a comprehensive understanding of the facts that have been presented.

It is of great concern that the reader of this paper realizes the importance of exposing the facts of the death penalty from fiction, in much the same way one would separate the “wheat from the chaff.” So, with that fair warning out of the way, we can begin by looking at the pros and cons of the death penalty, as stated by various organizations and finally we’ll compare and contrast what we know in order to formulate a structured philosophical summary of the massive amount of information that is available. The first side of the coin that will be considered is the viewpoint in support of the capital punishment.

The use of the death penalty in the United States is increasing rapidly. According to the U.S. Department of Justice website, there were 501 executions in the United States between the years 2000 and 2007. Along with this, comes increased debate on the death penalty. On one side of the aisle, many individuals believe that death is the only fair penalty for those who commit the worst criminal acts imaginable. Some supporters of the death penalty argue that capital punishment is even mentioned in the Bible. One passage states, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (New International Version, Gen 9.6).

Moreover, the death penalty was even referenced and supported by some of the greatest philosophers in history, such as Thomas More, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. The framers of our U.S. Constitution thought no differently; they too supported capital punishment (Siegel 577).

Looking at this issue from an ethical standpoint, it is important to consider why we use the death penalty in the first place. If we understand why something works the way it does, that knowledge should bring us closer to understanding whether or not to employ such a thing. In general, there are two major reasons why the death penalty is used. Primarily, it is meant to punish the criminal offender to the greatest extent possible for the crimes he or she committed. In the tradition of “an eye for an eye,” the punishment should somewhat match the crime, and in many instances, it is felt that death is the only comparable measure.

The punishing effect of the death penalty is best described by Louis Pojman, who found that, “imprisonment constitutes one evil, the loss of freedom, but the death penalty imposes a more severe loss, that of life itself…I fear death more than imprisonment because it alone takes from me all future possibility” (Bedau and Cassell 61).

The second major reason for the implementation of the death penalty deals with deterring other members of society from committing acts of murder. If we compare execution statistics with murder rates, we see that there is a strong correlation. As stated, “between 1965 and 1980, there was practically no death penalty in the United States, and for 10 of those 16 years—1967-76—there was literally no death penalty: a national moratorium” (Dudley 30). During this time period, when there was no threat of death if convicted, the murder rate in the United States rose from 9,960 annual murders to 23,040. The murder rate pretty much doubled during these years when there was no death penalty, with a jump from 5.1 homicides per 100,000 people to 10.2 homicides per 100,000 people (Dudley 30).

From the data given above, it is clear to see why so many people believe that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent. Whether or not the rise in murder rates had another cause behind them has yet to be fully understood.

In addition to this data, death penalty supporters believe that the act of killing a convicted murderer is justified, since the murderer will never again be able to take a human life. They argue that without the death penalty available, convicted murderers serving life sentences without the chance of parole may kill other inmates or prison guards. This stems from the belief that since the criminal cannot be punished any more severely, they have nothing to lose by killing someone in prison. This creates a risk that many individuals see as costly and unnecessary. Death penalty supporters would rather the murderer be killed, than be able to kill again in prison, or altogether escape from prison.

Shifting gears to the moral questions now, death penalty supporters are routinely challenged on their perceived lack of respect for the sanctity of all human life. In response to this, a common reply is that they support the death penalty because of their commitment to the sanctity of life, not in lieu of it. Their logic goes something like this: if a murderer takes an innocent life in cold blood, in doing so he or she has given up their own right to live. It is therefore imperative that the state execute this person, since not doing so would put greater value on the life of a murderer than on the life of a murderer’s victim.

Moreover, proponents of the death penalty claim that it is the smartest thing to do economically, since they believe the cost of life imprisonment outweighs the cost of an execution. What these supporters emphasize is that even with a costly execution, money is saved in the long run due to the reduction in future murders. The National Center for Policy Analysis claims that every execution results in 18 fewer murders in society (Friedman 62). Supporters believe that this proves how cost-effective the death penalty really is. As we will see later, this is a much disputed topic.

Having seen this viewpoint in support of the death penalty, let’s now turn to the other side and explore some of the reasons why someone would oppose it.

Primarily, the viewpoint rejecting the death penalty is rooted in the belief that no person or governing body has the right to take another life. While opponents of the death penalty agree that the act of murder is a horrendous crime, they do not believe that the state should engage in that same type of crime for any reason whatsoever. In their eyes, to do so would be hypocritical, unethical, immoral, and unjust.

Opponents of the death penalty usually support life imprisonment without the chance of parole as the alternative punishment. They claim that not only is this sometimes a more severe punishment than death, but that it is also cheaper in the long run. Certain groups claim that, “the most comprehensive study conducted in this country found that the death penalty costs $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty system imposing a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life” (Dieter 6). Moreover, the expenses of a death penalty trial and appeal process must be paid up front. On the other hand, life imprisonment expenses are incurred over a long period of time, therefore placing less strain on the system.

Another reason why some people oppose the death penalty has to do with their moral conscience. Since 1973, there have been 129 death row exonerations according to a study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union. Supporters of this viewpoint claim that through the use of new evidence (most notably DNA evidence), 129 lives have been spared from a wrongful death. They continue that this is proof enough that the criminal justice system is flawed and incapable of handing down capital punishment sentences with absolute certainty of the convicted person’s guilt (Bedau and Cassell 127).

These are just some of the most discussed issues on both sides of the argument for and against the death penalty. Obviously, there are many other motives for taking either side, but for the sake of brevity, we cannot cover them all. Now with this information in hand, it should be easier to make an independent decision on whether the death penalty is good or bad, moral or immoral, and just or unjust.

In my personal opinion, I began this project with an open mind, since I knew very little about capital punishment from either a historical or philosophical perspective. As I researched the vast array of data available on the subject, it became clear just how divided the issue really is. Eventually, however, I came to the conclusion that all this talk about the negativities of the death penalty really has more to do with its implementation than with its moral standing. What this means is that most of us can agree that some crimes are so terrible and so evil that the only justifiable punishment is death. The problem therefore is not in the severity of the punishment, but in the guarantee that only those worthy of such punishment receive it, rather than innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted. Additionally, if we have satisfied this first problem, another issue pops up; how do you simultaneously condemn the act of murder while agreeing for the death penalty without being hypocritical? This of course is settled in my mind, by remembering that the death penalty should be used for the greater good, which means that it should help prevent future murders both by removing the murderer from society and deterring others.

With all this being said, we must remember that a major failure of the death penalty is that it apparently costs far more than a life sentence. In my opinion, this is the most difficult obstacle to overcome, since the high costs of the appeals process helps assure the state that there has not been a mistake in the conviction process. So, will it ever be possible to lower the costs of the death penalty process, while at the same time insuring that no innocent people will be executed? The answer seems to be no, it is not possible to have the best of both worlds. Therefore, as with every tough decision in life, we must choose between the two.

Personally, I would rather take the extraordinarily small risk of executing an innocent person through the system of the state, than allow a convicted murderer to murder again, either in prison, or after escaping from prison. Also, even though the evidence is not unanimous, I believe that the death penalty serves as a deterrent, if but only for a very small number of potential criminals. If the death penalty laws deter even one person from taking a life, then it has served a good cause in protecting the life of the innocent. I am therefore in support of the death penalty, so long as it is carefully regulated and issued only in the worst cases, when no other punishment would seem fit.

In the words of former president James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Unfortunately, this is not the case. Thus, the government must be ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to see to it that freedom is upheld, crimes are punished, innocent citizens are protected, and criminals are deterred, even if that means using society’s ultimate sanction against society’s ultimate criminal.

Works Cited

Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty : An American History. New York: Harvard UP, 2003.

Bedau, Hugo Adam, and Paul G. Cassell, eds. Debating the Death Penalty : Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. New York: Oxford UP, 2004.

Dudley, William, ed. The Death Penalty. New York: Greenhaven P, Incorporated, 2005.

Friedman, Lauri S. The Death Penalty. New York: Greenhaven P, Incorporated, 2005.

Gray, Mike. The Death Game : Capital Punishment and the Luck of the Draw. New York: Common Courage P, 2003.

Jackson, Jesse L., Jesse L. Jackson, and Bruce Shapiro. Legal Lynching : The Death Penalty and America’s Future. New York: New P, The, 2001.

Sarat, Austin. When the State Kills : Capital Punishment and the American Condition. New York: Princeton UP, 2001.

Siegel, Larry J. Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005.

U.S. Department of Justice, comp. “Key Facts at a Glance Number of persons executed in the United States.” Capital Punishment Statistics. 17 Dec. 2007. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm>.