Clemencia Novela En Espanol :: Spanish Essays

Una de las principales caracteristicas del movimiento literario romanticista es el predominio de la emocion. En la obra de Ignacio M. Altamirano, Clemencia, se encuentra este tipo de predominio y es posible demostrar que en esta novela la emocion es mas importante que la razon. Primero, por medio de los sentimientos expresados por el narrador al relatar la historia. Segundo, a traves de los personajes pricipales y sus sentimientos, especialmente los de Clemencia, quien parece ser la persona por la cual fue titulada esta novela. Y por ultimo, el tema mismo, el cual comparte una historia de amor, sufrimiento y sentimientos patrioticos.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Al comienzo de la novela el narrador indica, no solo a sus amigos reunidos en su casa, sino al lector mismo, que el nos va contar una historia de mucha emocion, â€Å"una historia de amor y de desgracia†(4). Y comienza a relatar una historia que acontecio a fines del ano 1863, â€Å"ano desgraciado en que...ocupo el ejercito frances a Mexico†(4). Al llamarlo un â€Å"ano desgraciado†, es evidente que el siente una emocion negativa sobre ese conflicto y a la vez crea en la novela un sentimiento pesimista hacia los invasores extranjeros y lo que estos hicieron en Mexico en esa epoca. El narrador exalta un gran sentimiento de carino hacia Mexico por medio de su decripcion de ciudades Mexicanas, su gente, su geografia, su flora; â€Å"Guadalajara, que justo titulo puede llamarse la reina de Occidente... semejante a una mujer dotada de hermosura regia...†(11). Y continua describiendo otros aspectos de Mexico los cuales crean sentimientos de nostalgia y orgullo por lo que el llama â€Å"las bellezas de la patria†(13). Es obvio que esos sentimientos nacionalistas y regionalistas hacen resaltar la emocion que el siete sobre su patria. Son tambien muy evidentes sus emociones personales al hablar sobre de la perdida del amor puro y el movimiento hacia el amor por lo material, â€Å"saber amar bien y cumplidamente, con ternura, con lealtad, sin interes, sin miras bastardas, sino con virtud de un sentimiento tan exaltado como puro†(14). Y va creando asi una atmosfera emotiva, talvez preparandonos para poder entender mejor a los personajes y a los acontecimientos que estos viven en la novela.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  El narrador nos introduce a los personajes por medio de una gran descripcion fisica. Pero tambien incluye una gran cantidad de caracteristicas emotivas sobre estos personajes. A Enrique Flores lo presenta como â€Å"idolatrado por sus soldados, muy querido de sus companeros y el favorito del jefe...†(6). No importa que alto su rango, todos lo querian y lo halagaban.

Journey of Self-Discovery in Thomas Pynchons The Crying of Lot 49 Ess

Journey of Self-Discovery in Thomas Pynchons' The Crying of Lot 49 Â   Thomas Pynchons' The Crying of Lot 49 challenges the readers' perception of the world by enfolding his readers, through a variety of means, within the intricate workings of his narrative. It centers around would be heroine Oedipa Maas whose life is turned upside down when she discovers that she has been made executor of the estate of old flame and entrepreneur Pierce Inverarity. When she is imposed upon to travel to the fictional city of San Narcisco, where Inverarity is said to have numerous real estate holdings, in order to carry out her task, Oedipa stumbles upon a muted post horn; the first of many clues leading her deep into the impenetrable conspiracy surrounding Trystero, an underground postal system shrouded in mystery and intrigue; opening her eyes to an alternative way of life. This post modern work of literature infuses dark humor and irony instigating a metamorphosis of intellectually challenging material; subsequently luring us, his readers who have unknowingly become a part of the conspiracy, into the methodical chaos of The Crying of Lot 49. Well known for incorporating the basic ideas of philosophy and physics into all of his writings, Pynchon states that the "measure of the world is its entropy" (The Grim Phoenix, pg.2); an assertion that extends into the worlds he has created within the covers of his books. The structure of observation that Pynchon has constructed for the viewing of his creation has two distinct levels focused on those of his characters, particularly Oedipa Maas, who's world is restricted to the confines of the composition and also that of the reader who stands on the outside looking in; but who is also affected by (h... ... our inability to interact personally with the characters in the book, are bound to a bewildered cicerone who cannot see well enough to point us in the right direction. Although Oedipa never uncovers' the hidden truth as to whether or not there really exist a statewide conspiracy involving Trystero, in the end she gives herself over to the paranoia innate to never knowing for sure. Like the reader she has come to the conclusion that it would be a better practice to know that she's paranoid and accept it as a part of life in that society, then to deny its existence and live in doubt for the rest of her life. Choosing to embrace the new self she has unearthed in her journey, like the reader Oedipa is reintroduced to the world at large and with eyes wide open. Works Cited: Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying of Lot 49. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 1965.

The Inefficiency of Airline Security Essay -- TSA, terrorism, 9/11, ra

Everyone who has gotten out of bed in the morning has been exposed to risks. Whether it be risks from the factors around them, from themselves, or from people around them, they have faced some kind of risk. Comparatively, risks presented by situations around them and by themselves are considerably controllable. The risks delivered by people around them, however, are the ones that tend to be the most formidable. When people have a determination to be destructive, they often select targets which will stir up the most attention. Attributable to the criteria terrorists search for, airlines are a common target for terrorist activities. One of the most memorable terrorist attacks revealed sizable gaps in the safety of airlines. Although airline security has been significantly improved since the events of 9/11, the safety measures have gone overboard in the wrong areas, focusing on airport safety rather than airline safety, and need to be ameliorated to add efficiency back to aviation secu rity as a whole. Airport pat downs are at the point where they are intrusive and uncomfortable to many airline passengers and need to be done away with. Transportation Security Officer (TSO), William Touzani notes, â€Å"A lot of passengers are offended when going through airports because they feel violated and degraded† (Touzani) The uproar of the public regarding such feelings of â€Å"violation† has not gone unnoticed. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents throw their arms up and counter the cries, revealing that the bottom line is that those â€Å"degrading† search methods are what is required from them. In the words of an anonymous former Newark Airport TSA screener, â€Å"Every time you read about a TSA horror story, it’s usually about a screener do... ...ty, and the Problem of Rationality." Public Administration Review 1540-6210 62 (2002): 33-43. 17 Dec. 2002. Web. 1 Sept. 2013. Hawley, Kip, and Nathan Means. Permanent Emergency: Inside the TSA and the Fight for the Future of American Security. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2011. Print. Post Staff Report. "Former Newark Airport TSA Screener Says the Job Does Little to Keep Fliers safe." New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc., 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2013. Seidenstat, Paul, and Francis X. Splane. Protecting Airline Passengers in the Age of Terrorism. N.p.: Greenwood Group, n.d. Google Books. Google. Web. 27 Aug. 2013. Smith, Patrick. "A Pilot’s View of Airport Security." Theworld.org. PRI's The World, 17 Nov. 2010. Web. 2 Sept. 2013. Touzani, William. Screeners and Virgins: I'm Muslim, My Husband Is TSA. N.p.: n.p., 2011. Scribd. 3 Nov. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

Compare the ways in which Wordsworth presents London in Upon Westminster Bridge with Blakes view of London in his poem London

London, the best place you could ever dream of or the worst nightmare? London in 1700's was a different city, they didn't have cars instead of that they had horses, there was less pollution and fewer roads. People used to wear more formal clothes. In this piece of coursework I am going to compare ‘London' by William Blake and ‘Upon com/in-westminster-abbey-analysis/">Westminster Bridge' by William Wordsworth. William Wordsworth used to live on countryside, he only seen the positive side of London as William Blake lived in London and saw the realistic world. Blake only has seen the negative side of London. When you are looking from the bridge you can have a good overview and the bad side about looking from the bridge is that you can't see the details because you are distances. Wordsworth visit London in the morning and in most of the country's in the morning everything is quiet because the city is asleep. Wordsworth had a sad life because when he was around 8 years his mother died, and when he was 13 his father died, when he visited London that could be a runaway from problems that he might have and be able to forget about the sad moments. He also might feel that he is not overruled by somebody else, he could feel free. Both of the poems are about London but both of them got different background. Blake see the negative side when he written ‘Blasts the new-born Infant's tear' by this quote we can tell that every one live with a fear. Every child that was born must have a bad life because in those times they mum's might been a prostitute because if a women needs money she was able to sell herself because she wasn't able to find a better job. The poor people weren't able to be educated. Poor people in their times would be always poor. As Wordsworth seen only the good side of London but he never lived there so how could he rate London when he visits it only once? ‘The beauty of the morning: silent, bare, ships, towers, domes, theatres and temples' by this quote we can see that he had written the poem in the morning when everybody is about to wake up. He tells the way as he sees it or imagines it, he is not realistic. The word ‘tear' could also be a tear of happiness as well as of sadness. William Blake was a person that strongly was interest in religions. In the first stanza he repeats himself twice, once by using â€Å"charter'd†. This shows that he is talking about the characters of people; he saw this as robbing ordinary people of their right and freedoms. The second repetition he used was the word â€Å"marks†. This has a double meaning one of them could be that the physical damages that are being made and leaving marks in everybody minds and they can't forget about it. The other meaning could be that he is collecting evidences as he walks around. Blake's poem is full of negative words that he used in every stanza such as â€Å"blood†, â€Å"weakness†, â€Å"cry† and many more. The poem ends with words â€Å"marriage hearse† for everyone marriage is such a great thing but he compared it to funerals. This might shows that he prefers to be lonely. William Wordsworth used his imagination when he was writing the poem as well as being on the bridge and seeing the realistic world. He written something that cant happens in realistic world, â€Å"The beauty of the morning† â€Å"like a garment†, the city cannot be wearing clothes, but it's already clothed itself by nature. Wordsworth used list to describe the things he was seeing. He doesn't only show positive language in line 1, 9 and 11 he used negative language. Most of the lines contain positive language words like â€Å"bright†, â€Å"glittering†, â€Å"splendour† and â€Å"glideth† create a magical world that is being like it fake and unrealistic. The poem is written as a sonnet which doesn't just show love but it shows the poets love for London. The average number of syllables in each line is 10. William uses this because it suggests that he doesn't want anything to change in London. The poem is very peaceful and calm. Evidence for this is ‘never did sun more beautifully steep'. This shows that London was a beautiful place, very calm, and a lot of country side might not have many buildings around. William Wordsworth writes about what he can see in the morning when he stands on Westminster Bridge. ‘The beauty of the morning' is evidence for this. It is written in the 3rd person and is also in the present tense. This shows that it was happening as he was writing the poem. This also helps the reader to visualise what is happening and to understand the poem more. The sestet is about how the poet feels. Evidence for this is ‘Ne'er saw I, never felt, calm so deep'. It is in the 1st person and is partially in the past tense, he shows positive language. Blake's format of the poem is like lyrics of a song. There are four stanzas, all of them shows different aspect of the city. Every single stanza talks about something else. His poem is like snapshots of loads of different scenes. In my opinion both of the poetess have right to give their own opinion, like every human being. William Blake showed the bad side of London and Wordsworth the good side, both of them has right to show the differences every person got different views for certain things. Blake was showing the negative things to show what makes him angry as Wordsworth has made his poem calm and enjoyable for everyone.

Sstill Seperate Still Unequal

In Kozol’s article â€Å"Still Separate, Still Unequal-America’s educational apartheid,† kozolool describes the reality of urban public schools and the isolation and segregation the students there face today in the American system. Jonathan Kozol illustrates the grim reality of the inequality that African American and Hispanic children face within todays public education system. In this essay, Kozol shows us with shocking statistics and percentages, just how segregated Americas urban schools have become.He also brings light to the fact that suburban schools, with predominantly white students, are given far better funding and a much higher quality education, than the poverty stricken schools of the ubarn neighbourhood He show us how we even built several new schools in mostly white neighbourhoods, hoping that the close proximity of the school would encourage white parents to send their children to those schools.Instead, when parents see that mostly African America ns and Hispanics attend these schools, they pull their children out of them and send them to private, white institutions. But never the less all this is not a proper justification of the gap that still exist between black an white in the education system and in the active live. In this article the author point the fact that money is the key for a good education, By trying to compare the curriculum of student from private with student from public school.The community school that my niece went was somewhere around 98% black and and Hispanic I would say they had a pretty good percentage in the of success for a school. Now she is attending college even that her parent is poor she take loan to go to school and she use her financial aid to be able to go to school as other. During the 100th anniversary celebration of the NAACP the president declares: â€Å"We've got to say to our children, yes, if you're African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher.Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that's not a reason to get bad grades — that's not a reason to cut class — that's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands — you cannot forget that. That's what we have to teach all of our children. No excuses. No excuses. You get that education; all those hardships will just make you stronger, better able to compete. Yes we can. †

Contribution of Arts in the Uplift of Society Essay

The meaning of â€Å"art† has changed since the industrial revolution and a clarification has to come if we should be able to handle the problem from our own angle. First of all, the esotery of art must disappear; its limitation to specialists; the mysticism around it; the looking out for geniuses only. It is good to believe that in the future art may be explained in intellectual terms with greater clarity than it is possible today. Psychoanalysis already shows the mechanics of dreams, the role of the unconscious. The hope is justified that the mechanics of creative work and its sources will be unveiled one day as well. This may be the preliminary step to understanding its necessary community function and also its vital importance for the individual. He must be activized by doing instead of being merely a receptive participant. Our mass-produced civilization, the tiresome work at the conveyor belts, the cheap narcotics given in records, books, papers, magazines, cinema, radio and, of course, the disappearance of leisure killed folk art. The artist who already started to become a specialist in the craftsman-guilds of the middle ages took over every aspect of its functions. Specialization was forced upon us through hundreds of ungoverned happening and their mostly unforeseen effects; through hastened decisions in accepting and developing the machine as the only means of production; through a first unexpected but later forced gigantic growth of population, profit motives, etc., all claimed today as providential or â€Å"economic† necessities. For the time being, very few people know that the present form of specialization is a terrible weapon against us, against human nature. I am not speaking against the machine or the machine age. The machine is a splendid invention and will form the new basis for a more developed human society. But after the glorious technomania of the twenties, we know today that man cannot master the machine until he has leanred to master himself. But how can he achieve this when he even does not know what he possesses, what his abilities and capacities are? He has delivered himself to thoughtless specialization which results in the development of certain of his faculties and—as a consequence of this—in a rather unnatural passivity outside of his specialized work. People are taught that the best way of living is to buy other people’s energy, to use other people’s skill. In other words, a dangerous metropolitan dogma developed that the different subject matters are best handled by experts and no one should violate the borders of his specialized work of profession. So through the division of labor and the mechanized methods not only the production of daily necessities and goods has passed into the hands of specialists but almost every outlet for the emotional life as well. Today the artist-specialists have to provide for emotions. They are paid—if they are—for that. The sad consequence is that the biological interest in everything within the spheres of human existence becomes suffocated by the tinsel of a seemingly easygoing life. Man who has biologically the potential to comprehend the world with the entirety of his abilities, to conceive and express himself through different media, the word, tone, color, etc., agrees voluntarily to the amputation of these most valuable potentialities. Nothing proves better the lost feeling for the fundamentals of human life than the fact that has to be emphasized today: Feeling and thinking and their expression in any media belong to the normal living standard of man; to live without them means starvation of the intellectual and emotional side of life as missing food means starvation of the body. The non-verbalized expression of feeling is what we may call art, but not art on a pedestal. Art is a community matter transcending the limitations of specialization. It is the most intimate language of the senses, indispensable for the individual in society. Its function is to be a seismograph of the relationships of the individual to the world, intuitive re-creation of the balance between the emotional, intellectual and social existences of the individual. Everywhere in the world, since about 1910, young artists have tried to understand this. They searched for the best way to express themselves, to solve the problems which painting, sculpture, writing, composition brought to them. They did not search for â€Å"art†, but for sincere expression. Intuitively they returned to the fundamentals of the media—the painter to color and light, the sculptor to volume, the architect to space, the composer to tone, the writer to the word. Their work opens the way to the lost emotional sensorial sources and to a kind of socio-biology of the human being. But yet there is a great lag in the people’s mind concerning the benefits of this appro ach. Nothing more surprising has happened in the life of a nation, expcept perhaps in Russia, than the establishing of the Federal Art Project in the United States of America. Though it started as a part of the Social Security Act of the WPA it grew in a short time beyond this relief aspect. The Federal Art Project gave the country a new valuation of the arts, badly needed as the pioneers bringing civilization over a continent with audacity and hard physical work could not see in the arts for a long time anything but luxury. The Federal Art Project broke down this fallacy. It represented a gigantic educational work, not in the sense that it â€Å"brought art to the people† or created art for the people, but that it tried to anchor it in, with, among, and of the people. Since the Federal Art Project is liquidated, a greater responsibility lies with the educators of this country than ever before. It is up to them to see that art should be a part of life. This could be done early, but not as a timetable subject segregated from the other branches of the curriclum, but as an interpenetrating reality with all of them. If the unity of art can be established with all the subject matters taught and exercised, then a real reconstruction of this world could be hoped for—more balanced and less dangerous.

Blowing the Truth out

Whistle blowing is informing on illegal and unethical practices in the work place is becoming increasingly common as employees speak out about their ethical concerns at work. It can have disastrous consequences for the individual, as well as threatening the survival of the organization that is being complained about. This paper aims to provide a balanced approach to this topic, which has generated much controversy and debate. I would like to first explain what whistle blowing is and detail some the following important moral issues that go along with whistle blowing. I will try to show how this could affect any one by going over a classic case of an Eastern Airlines pilot . As well as considering how an individual can protect him or herself from becoming the victim when trying to blow the whistle. Under what circumstances, if any, is whistle blowing morally justified? Some people have argued that whistle blowing is never justified because employees have absolute obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to the organization for which they work. People who argue this way see no difference between employees who reveal trade secrets by selling information to competitors, and whistle – blowers who disclose activities harmful to others. This position is similar to another held by some business people that the sole obligation of corporate executives is to make a profit for the stockholders. If this were true, corporate executives would have no obligations to the public. However, no matter what one's special obligation, one is never exempt from the general obligations we have to our fellow human beings. One of the most fundamental of these obligations is not to cause harm to others. Corporate executives are no more exempt from this obligation than other people. Corporations in democratic societies are run with the expectations that they will function in ways that are compatible with the public interest. Corporations in democratic societies are also run with the expectations that they will not only obey the law governing their activities, but will not do anything that undermines basic democratic processes, such as bribing public officials. In addition to having the obligation to make money for stockholders, corporate executives have the obligation to see that these obligations are complied within an organization. They also have obligations to the company's employees, for example to maintain a safe working place. It is the failure of corporate executives to fulfill obligations of the types mentioned that create the need for whistle blowing. Just as the special obligations of corporate executives to stockholders cannot override their more fundamental obligations to others, the special obligations of employees to employer cannot override their more fundamental obligations. Such as obligations of confidentiality and loyalty cannot take precedence over the fundamental duty to act in ways that prevent unnecessary harm to others. Agreements to keep something secret have no moral standing unless the secret is itself morally justifiable. For example a no person can have an obligation to keep a secret of a plot to murder someone, because murder is an immoral act. It is for this reason also that employees have a legal obligation to report an employer who has committed or is about to commit a felony. Although there are obvious differences between the situation of employees who work for government agencies and those who work for private firms, if we leave apart the special case in which national security was involved, then the same principles apply to both. The Codes of Ethics of Government Service to which all government employees are expected to conform requires that employees put loyalty to moral principles and the national interest above loyalty to the public parties or the agency for which they work. Neither can one justify participation in an illegal or immoral activity by arguing that one was merely following orders. It has also been argued that whistle blowing is always justified because it is an exercise of the right to free speech. But, the right to free speech is not perfect. An example to shout â€Å"Fire† in a crowded theater because that is likely to cause a panic in which people may be injured. Similarly, one may have a right to speak out on a particular subject, in the sense that there are no contractual agreements which prohibit him/her from doing so, but it may be the case that it would be morally wrong for one to do so because it would harm innocent people, such as one's fellow workers and stockholders who are not responsible for the wrongdoing being disclosed. The fact that one has the right to speak out does not mean that one should do so in every case. But this kind of consideration cannot create an complete prohibition against whistle-blowing because one must weigh the harm to fellow workers and stockholders caused by disclosure against the harm to others caused by allowing the organizational wrong to continue. Further more, the moral principles that you must consider all people's interests equally prohibits giving preference to one's own group. So there most be considered justification for not giving as much weight to the interest of the stockholders investing in corporate firms because they do so with the knowledge that they take on financial risk if management acts illegally or immorally. Same as if the employees of a company know that it is engaged in illegal or immoral activities and do not take action, including whistle blowing, to end the activities, then they must bear some of the guilt for the actions. These in turn cancel the principles that one should refrain from blowing the whistle because speaking out would cause harm to the organization. Unless it can be shown that the harm to the employees and stockholders would be significantly greater than the harm caused by the organizational wrong doing, the obligation to avoid unnecessary harm to the public must come first. This must be true even when there is specific agreements not to speak out. Because ones obligation to the public overrides one's obligation to maintain secrecy. If the arguments which I have just made are valid then the position of whistle blowing is never justified because it involves a violation of loyalty and confidentiality, or that whistle blowing is always right because it is an exercise of the right to free speech and is morally justified. Then the obligation a person has to prevent avoidable harm to others overrides any obligations of confidentiality and loyalty, making it an obligation to blow the whistle on illegal or unethical acts. Now that I have set down some moral ground rules that help determine if your responsible or justified in blowing the whistle on big business, I would like to share with you an example of what happened to a company and a employee of a company that has had the whistle blown on them. In this first case a pilot of eastern whistle comes clean on what he suspects to be serious design problem with the new Lockheed 1011, wide body aircraft. At the time Dan blew the whistle, he was flying regularly scheduled flights for Eastern airlines as well as being involved in flight training and engineering safety, for Eastern airlines. Mr. Gellert was also a graduate of Air Force Safety School, the Army Crash Survival Investigators coarse, and the aerospace Systems Safety, all highly regarded safety courses. The problem, which Mr. Gellert suspected, was of unexplainable crashes in a flight simulator while using the auto pilot system . The L-1011 defect involved the complex interaction between the crew and the autopilot and related instruments, which they relied upon to conduct a safe approach to a runway when landing the aircraft. Mr. Gellert became aware of the problem on a routine flight while using the L-1011. While flying the aircraft with the autopilot engaged and cruising at 10,000 feet with 230 passengers, Gellert dropped his flight plan. As he went to pick it up, his elbow hit the control stick in front of him causing the plane to go in a steep dive something that should not happen. Fortunately, he was able to grab the stick and ease the plane back on course. What had happened was that that while bumping the stick, he had tripped off the autopilot. Instead of holding the plane at 10,000 feet, it had switched from its â€Å"command mode† to â€Å"control steering†. As a result, when the stick moved forward, causing the plane to dive, the autopilot, rather than holding the aircraft on course held it in a dive. There was no warning to the pilot, such as alarms or light and the autopilot's altimeter indicated that the plane was flying at 10,000 feet, a dangerously wrong reading. After this incident Gellert told an Eastern management official what had happened and the official replied â€Å"we'll look into it. But three months later from the time he reported the incident an Eastern airlines flight approaching Miami International Airport crashed. The crew had used the autopilot to land the plane and it had malfunctioned crashing into the everglades. The first step that Mr. Gellert took in blowing the whistle on Eastern airlines and Lockheed was to write a two page evaluation of the auto pilots problems and send them to, Frank Borman, then vice-president of operations; Floyd Hall, chairman of the board , and Samuel Higgenbottom, president of operations. The only response was from Borman that said, it was â€Å"pure folly† that the autopilot caused the accident. He also sent two copies to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board. ) which agreed with Gellert and asked him to testify against Eastern and Lockheed. Even with his testimony on his experiences with the auto pilot system NTSB found that a defect in the autopilot caused the crash, but attributed the tragedy to â€Å"pilot error† because the crew did not react fast enough. At this point eastern has done nothing to keep Gellert from doing his job . Until he had the same situation happened to him on two separate occasions, which prompted him to write a twelve-page petition to the NTSB as well as to top management. Gellert was immediately demoted to co-pilot. â€Å"Twice a year pilots bid on a base, a position, or a particular aircraft. † The first indication that he was being penalized by the company for his written petitions. At the same time the NTSB began to put pressure on eastern to make alterations to it's aircraft's. The pressure that went along with confronting eastern management forced Gillert to take a three- year leave of absence. And when Gillert decided to return to work, eastern denied him, questioning his ability to fly an aircraft concerned with his mental state. Eastern grounded Gillert indefinitely. A civil suit was filed and won by Gellert . The jury found Eastern guilty and awarded him 1. 5 million in damages, which were never paid, due to appeals. Gellert also filed a grievance to get reinstated as a pilot , which he won but Eastern refused to instate him as a full time pilot . The bottom line is that eastern was making life hard on Gillard because he wanted to do the right thing , he was aware of a problem which he tried to bring to the attention of the executives in charge . He was a dedicated employee and was only concerned about the safety of the people Eastern was flying and in turn Eastern continues to punish him and make his life extremely hard. I believe what has happened in the above summary of the Eastern airline case is that which is common among whistle blowers. Employees that decide to blow the whistle on big business for the greater good of the people are often subject to countless acts of discrimination. Employees are often demoted, pushed aside, put down ,alienated from the industry, and made their lives extremely uncomfortable for the mere fact that they tried to do the right thing. Gellert felt that the autopilot was defective yet management refused to listen, and then when it was to late and an accident occurred management didn't want to know , because they didn't want to except responsibility for not addressing the problem in the first place. If anything Gellert should have been rewarded for trying to prevent a disaster but instead, as is common for many whistle blowers he was punished. Employees who discover apparent wrong-doing have several options, they can turn a blind eye and continue as normal, raise the matter internally and hope for the best, blow the whistle outside while trying to remain anonymous, blow the whistle and take the full force of employer disapproval, resign and remain silent, or resign and blow the whistle. The key is minimizing the risk to you as an employee. As I have shown to blow the whistle requires a great deal of care and patience. Yet sometimes employees do not always make good judgements in the heat of the moment. Allowing himself or herself to be more vulnerable then someone who takes the time to plan and receive advice to do it right. Some simple questions will help to minimize your risk and determine if blowing the whistle is really necessary. First, make sure the situation is one that warrants whistle blowing. Secondly, you should carefully examine your motives. Third, verify and document your information. Fourth, determine the type of wrongdoing involved and to whom it should be reported. Fifth, state your allegations in appropriate ways. Sixth, decide whether the whistle blowing should be internal or external and if it should be open or anonymous. Seventh, make sure you follow proper guidelines in reporting the wrongdoing. And last you should consult a lawyer and anticipate as well as document retaliation. With all this said there is really no sure way to go about making the right choice on weather to blow the whistle or not. Employees that are forced to blow the whistle are often forced to do so because their concerns are not given fair hearings by their employers. This results in damage to both the whistleblower and the organization. Yet if wrong doing with in an organization go undetected, they can result in even in greater damage to the workforce, and the public at large. Whistle blowing is an effective way to regulate business internally and should not be discriminated against. In researching this paper it has come to my attention that whistle blowers may never have it easy. The possibility of causing career suicide should be maintained at the lowest level possible. A good indication of the how genuinely ethical our society is how organizations treats its whistleblowers. I can only hope that we will improve in the next coming century than continue on the course we have set for ourselves in the past. I strongly believe that society owes an immense gratitude to its whistle blowers and that they will soon be praised for coming forward instead of punished.