Appearance of colonies microorganism Essay Example for Free

Appearance of colonies microorganism Essay VRBA |Appearance of Colonies |Microorganisms | |Red, surrounded by reddish precipitation zones, diameter1- 2 mm |Lactose-positive Enterobacteriaceae: coliform bacteria, E. coli | |Pink, pin-point colonies |Enterococci, possibly Klebsiella | |Colorless |Lactose-negative Enterobacteriaceae | CCA E. coli: dark-blue to violet colonies (Salmon-GAL and X-glucuronide reaction). Total coliforms: salmon to red colonies (Salmon-GAL reaction) and dark-blue to violet colonies (E. coli). Other Gram-negatives: colorless colonies, except for some organisms which possess ÃÆ'Ã… ¸-D-glucuronidase activity. These colonies appear light-blue to turquoise. In order to confirm E. coli, coat the dark-blue to violet colonies with a drop of KOVACS indole reagent. If the reagent turns to a cherry-red color after some seconds, a positive indole formation confirms the presence of E. coli. E. coli in Macconkey Agar MACCONKEY AGAR |Appearance of Colonies |Microorganisms | |Colorless, translucent |Salmonella, Shigella, others | |Large, red, surrounded by turbid zones |Escherichia coli | |Large, pink, mucoid |Enterobecter, Klebsiella | |Very small, opaque, isolated colonies |Enterococci, Staphylococci, and others | [pic] [pic] S. aureus in baird-parker agar BAIRD-PARKER AGAR |Appearance of colonies |Microorganisms | |Black, shiny, convex colonies 1-5 m in diameter with a narrow, white edge surrounded by a clear zone 2-5 mm |Staphylococcus aureus | |wide. Opaque rings within the clear zones only appear after 48 hours of incubation | | |Black, shiny, irregular shape. Opaque zone develop around the colonies after 24 hours. |Staphylococcus epidermidis | |Growth sometimes: | | |Very small, brown to black, no clear zones. |Micrococci | |Dark brown, dull, clear zones sometimes appear after 48 hours. |Bacillus species | |White, no clear zones. |Yeasts | [pic] P. aeruginosa in cetrimide agar [pic] [pic] Salmonella in Macconkey Agar [pic]

Committing Adultery Essay Example for Free

Committing Adultery Essay A marriage is full of moral ethics that should be followed. Kant would have agreed with me that we have moral duties to ones self and others. A marriage is committing moral thoughts, words, and actions to yourself and your spouse. Kant believed in treating other people the way you wish they would treat you. Never treat other people as if they were merely things. The formula of humanity states that we should treat people as an end and never as a means to an end. In committing adultery, the marriage and the spouse are being used as a means. Marriage should be treated with dignity and not as a thing that can be played with. I hope no one would apply the universal law of categorical imperative to committing adultery. I could not imagine applying the act of committing adultery to how all others should act. If we did apply the universal law to committing adultery then marriage would be worthless. Basically, do not choose a rule for yourself that you wouldn’t want everyone else to obey. Kant believes that the only good thing is a good will. Good will equals good intentions. Committing adultery is not a morally good act and Kant would agree with me. Utilitarianism is an action that is right if it maximizes the overall happiness of all people. In other words, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. This is consequentialism. Utilitarianism has rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. In rule utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of the rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. I believe it is more favorable to your spouse not to cheat than to cheat. I would be also more favorable to you not to cheat so the spouse doesn’t get upset. Act utilitarianism weighs the consequences of each particular action. There is a list of consequences of the act of committing adultery and none of them are good. There are moral rules against committing adultery and one of them is lying. In taking the vows in front of God is a form of a promise and breaking that promise is lying to God. John Stuart Mill is a hedonistic utilitarian. Our actions are meant to give happiness not only to ourselves but to others as well. Mill made the distinction of happiness between pleasures of the mental sort as a higher form than that of bodily pleasures. Mill states, it is better to be intelligently dissatisfied then foolishly satisfied. The ultimate pain and misery caused by committing adultery is not worth the short term pleasure that it produces. Wikipedia. org states that Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is classified as a type of hedonism, as it judges the morality of the actions by their consequent contributions to the greater good and happiness of all. Mills believes that there can be different levels of pleasure as long as the act promotes an action which makes everyone happy. Mills would say that committing adultery doesn’t bring overall happiness. Hedonism is described as pleasure is the highest good and whatever causes pleasure is right. On this note, hedonism would say committing adultery would be right if it is giving the cheating spouse pleasure. Committing adultery is motivated by desire and it can reduce pain by not telling the spouse that you are cheating. Most of the time committing adultery is motivated by sexual desire. My view on committing adultery is closest with Kantianism. Good will equals good intentions. They way I treat my spouse is the way I would want to be treated. I value marriage and I hope my spouse does too.

Engineering Essays Implications For Engineers

Engineering Essays Implications For Engineers The balance of employment in civil engineering has moved from the public sector to the private sector. Discuss the implications for engineers in particular and society in general. Introduction Civil Engineering is that field of engineering that is involved in the design and construction of roads, bridges, dams, buildings and other public works (civil_engineering.bluerider.com). At some point in time, public facilities were the responsibility of the authority. The authority could have been the kingdom or a government. That is why civil engineers have traditionally been employed principally by the public sector. Everything was run by the government. So everything must be provided and constructed by the same government. Civil Engineering However, the field of engineering grew wider and wider over the years. The requirements of the public grew with the population and standard of living. This put increasing pressure on the government. At some point, it was difficult for the government to keep pace with the growing needs and aspirations of the nation. To meet those needs, more buildings and facilities had to be constructed and faster. That was only possible if an increasing number of civil engineers are employed. Managing that growing number of engineers would become taxing on a central government if it did not have a means of sharing that responsibility with the industrial world. At the same time, as the standard of living increased and industrialisation took place, a growing number of facilities were required by individual group of people such as factory owners. These factory owners were willing to pay an individual or a private company to build its factory provided it could build it to his requirements and in time. T hat is how civil engineers and other related workers started being employed by the private-run companies for private needs. Today, with an economy of this size, the government can only trace the general strategy of development. It cannot go into the details of what should be built for each individual. Construction sector therefore has become a primarily private trade where the buyers and the sellers are private. The government needs to employ just enough to regulate and control the standards. Status The repercussions of this drift from the public to the private sector are numerous for the engineer. The first and most important of all is the status and image of the engineer. Despite the fact that the job of the engineer has become increasingly difficult, the image and recognition of the engineer for the rest of the society has declined over the years. Teachers, doctors and lawyers are looked upon as noble professions because they are seen to serve the public interest directly. Engineers are no longer seen that way because they serve a client base that is private. So the modern engineer does not benefit the same respect of the public as his ancient counterpart. Societys View From the societys point of view, the engineer is a less trust-worthy person today because he is not directly controlled by the government. He is perceived as somebody who is working for money, and not somebody who is working in public service. Consequently, the pubic works are likely to be less reliable. The public eventually has to accept what is offered to him because he does not have a choice. There is no alternative on offer. Salary The engineer today has the possibility of getting a higher salary than before. Because he is paid according to the service he dispenses, the more he works or the better quality of work he delivers, the more he is likely to be paid. That is compared to the fact that as a government worker, the engineer would have received the same pay whether he builds one building or ten. However, this also means that the salary will be set by the market. One of the complaints of engineers today is that their salary does not reflect the level of work they perform. At a company level, it is easier to assign a share of the profit to a salesman because he has contributed to a certain amount of turnover. A manager can be associated with the amount of money his department or branch has made. But it is much more difficult to quantify the economic worth of an engineer because his output cannot be measured directly in monetary terms. That is why that despite the fact that the change from public to private se ctor gives the possibility for a better pay, that possibility is not materialised in reality for the majority of engineers today. Politics Governments are run by politicians and politicians have to take account of the perception of the public before taking harsh decisions. That is why traditionally, employment in the public sector is more secure than that in private sector. The government itself cannot be seen to create unemployment. So, one of the incidence of the shift form public to private sector for the engineer is that today, his job is less secure than before. Specialisation With the development of technology and the pursuit of knowledge, the field of civil engineering has become so vast now that a civil engineer cannot possibly know everything about the field. This has led to specialisation of trade. Today, a civil engineer can be either a structural engineer or a highway engineer or a geotechnical engineer or any one of the various facets of civil engineering. Efficiency Civil engineers and civil engineering companies can be said to be more efficient today than the days when civil works were done by public sector. Privatisation of construction work has led to faster construction work because now companies have to operate in a competitive market. Competition in construction has benefited mostly to the society because now, more facilities is constructed faster, at cheaper costs, and the end product is more attractive. So, one of the repercussions on the society at large is that it has benefited from a more efficient civil engineering industry. Conclusion The implications of the shift in the balance of employment in civil engineering from the public sector to the private sector to the engineer can be summarised in terms of change in salary structure, change in image, in type of job, job security among others. For the society, it is mainly a more efficient industry but with more doubtful reliability. References 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://civil_engineering.bluerider.com/wordsearch/civil_engineering Bibliography .  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, American Society of Civil Engineer, 1991 .  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Tarsh, Jason, Graduate Shortages in Science and Engineering, Department of Employment, 1985

Reducing waste in Europe Essay -- Waste Management, Waste Handling

European Union Directive 2008/98/EC outlines hierarchy of steps in which waste handling should occur. It suggests that waste prevention should be a top priority followed by re-use and recycling of materials. However in modern, demand and profit driven society this tactic has very small chance of success, certainly in terms of reducing and reusing. As a result generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) is projected to rise by further 2020 by 16% in EU-27, with 80% produced in the EU-15 (which includes UK) (Skovgaard et al., 2008). This implies that â€Å"The 3 R’s† strategy fails to deliver its key objective – waste reduction. Thus attention should also focus on options that could help to reduce waste accumulation rather than just prevention. One of the most successful strategies to decrease landfill waste is to divert it to Waste to Energy (WtE) facilities. The most popular form of energy recovery from waste, for technical and economical reason, is Waste to Energy Incineration (WtEI). It raises a lot of controversy, mainly because it is associated with technologies from the past, when air pollution controls did not exist. This resulted in significant environmental degradation and heath issues. Understandably, this has left a bad image of incineration. Modern incinerators however emit less than 10% of pollutants than their counterparts 25 years ago (DEFRA, 2013). Technology has the potential to play a significant role as part of waste management strategy but equally important as constituent of balanced energy mix. This essay presents available evidence which sheds new light on Waste to Energy Incineration, highlighting its impact on environment, energy security and human health. In 2011 waste management contributed 17.3 MtCO2e (3.1... ...te Management 29, 1718–1724 Shalunenko, N., I.,Korolyuk, T., A., 2012. Construction glass material based on ash from waste incineration plants. Glass and Ceramics, Vol. 69, Nos. 11 – 12, March, 2013 Skovgaard, M., Hedal, N., Villanueva, A., Andersen, F., M., Larsen, H., 2008. Municipal waste management and greenhouse gases. ETC/RWM working paper 2008/1 Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/wp2008_1/wp/wp1_2008 Accessed on: 4th December 2013 Tabasovà ¡, A., Kropà ¡c, J., Kermes, V., Nemet, A., Stehlà ­k, P., 2012. Waste-to-energy technologies: Impact on environment. Energy 44, 146-155 UK biomass strategy, 2007. Working Paper 1 – economic analysis of biomass energy. Energy Technologies Unit Department of Trade and Industry. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39040.pdf Accessed on: 24th November 2013 Reducing waste in Europe Essay -- Waste Management, Waste Handling European Union Directive 2008/98/EC outlines hierarchy of steps in which waste handling should occur. It suggests that waste prevention should be a top priority followed by re-use and recycling of materials. However in modern, demand and profit driven society this tactic has very small chance of success, certainly in terms of reducing and reusing. As a result generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) is projected to rise by further 2020 by 16% in EU-27, with 80% produced in the EU-15 (which includes UK) (Skovgaard et al., 2008). This implies that â€Å"The 3 R’s† strategy fails to deliver its key objective – waste reduction. Thus attention should also focus on options that could help to reduce waste accumulation rather than just prevention. One of the most successful strategies to decrease landfill waste is to divert it to Waste to Energy (WtE) facilities. The most popular form of energy recovery from waste, for technical and economical reason, is Waste to Energy Incineration (WtEI). It raises a lot of controversy, mainly because it is associated with technologies from the past, when air pollution controls did not exist. This resulted in significant environmental degradation and heath issues. Understandably, this has left a bad image of incineration. Modern incinerators however emit less than 10% of pollutants than their counterparts 25 years ago (DEFRA, 2013). Technology has the potential to play a significant role as part of waste management strategy but equally important as constituent of balanced energy mix. This essay presents available evidence which sheds new light on Waste to Energy Incineration, highlighting its impact on environment, energy security and human health. In 2011 waste management contributed 17.3 MtCO2e (3.1... ...te Management 29, 1718–1724 Shalunenko, N., I.,Korolyuk, T., A., 2012. Construction glass material based on ash from waste incineration plants. Glass and Ceramics, Vol. 69, Nos. 11 – 12, March, 2013 Skovgaard, M., Hedal, N., Villanueva, A., Andersen, F., M., Larsen, H., 2008. Municipal waste management and greenhouse gases. ETC/RWM working paper 2008/1 Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/wp2008_1/wp/wp1_2008 Accessed on: 4th December 2013 Tabasovà ¡, A., Kropà ¡c, J., Kermes, V., Nemet, A., Stehlà ­k, P., 2012. Waste-to-energy technologies: Impact on environment. Energy 44, 146-155 UK biomass strategy, 2007. Working Paper 1 – economic analysis of biomass energy. Energy Technologies Unit Department of Trade and Industry. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39040.pdf Accessed on: 24th November 2013

Federalist Party :: American America History

Federalist Party "Seldom in the nation's history has there been a period so extraordinary in accomplishment as the first decade under the Constitution...." This paper is going to be a step by step evaluation of arguably the most important decade in American History. The time period covered in this paper is 1789-1801. These are the years in which the Federalists had the most influence in the new government. They accomplished an amazing amount in these 12 years. The Federalist Party was one of the first political organizations in the United States. The members of this party supported a strong central government, a large peacetime army and navy, and a stable financial system. Although the first president, George Washington, was not a Federalist, his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was the developer and leader of the Federalist party. Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution so that the central government could become more powerful. Also Hamilton, along with the other party members, believed that commerce and manufacturing were more important than agriculture. Financial Dilemma During the first two years of the new federal government the biggest problem was that of raising money. At first the Congress adopted a small tariff on imports. This was a start but not nearly enough. The government needed this money to maintain its own existence and to be able to pay of the debt. The existence of the government was a necessity, but there was a lot of discussion as to whether the debt should be payed off. The mare magnitude of the debt seemed to compel some measure of avoidance. In 1789, the national debt totaled more than $50 million, $11,700,000 of which was owed to France and Spain and the private bankers of Netherlands, while $40 million was in the form of securities held by citizens of the United States. The interests owed to the bankers were being payed off by loans from the bankers themselves. The government didn't even have enough money to pay the Barbary corsairs for release of captive sailors! When Congress couldn't come up with a solution that was satisfactory, they turned to Alexander Hamilton with the dilemma. He soon proceeded to draw up a full report entitled "Report on Public Credit." In this paper Hamilton proceeded to show that the only way for a new government to establish credit was to deal honestly with its creditors -for in many cases they would be the people to whom the government must look to for future loans. Federalist Party :: American America History Federalist Party "Seldom in the nation's history has there been a period so extraordinary in accomplishment as the first decade under the Constitution...." This paper is going to be a step by step evaluation of arguably the most important decade in American History. The time period covered in this paper is 1789-1801. These are the years in which the Federalists had the most influence in the new government. They accomplished an amazing amount in these 12 years. The Federalist Party was one of the first political organizations in the United States. The members of this party supported a strong central government, a large peacetime army and navy, and a stable financial system. Although the first president, George Washington, was not a Federalist, his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was the developer and leader of the Federalist party. Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution so that the central government could become more powerful. Also Hamilton, along with the other party members, believed that commerce and manufacturing were more important than agriculture. Financial Dilemma During the first two years of the new federal government the biggest problem was that of raising money. At first the Congress adopted a small tariff on imports. This was a start but not nearly enough. The government needed this money to maintain its own existence and to be able to pay of the debt. The existence of the government was a necessity, but there was a lot of discussion as to whether the debt should be payed off. The mare magnitude of the debt seemed to compel some measure of avoidance. In 1789, the national debt totaled more than $50 million, $11,700,000 of which was owed to France and Spain and the private bankers of Netherlands, while $40 million was in the form of securities held by citizens of the United States. The interests owed to the bankers were being payed off by loans from the bankers themselves. The government didn't even have enough money to pay the Barbary corsairs for release of captive sailors! When Congress couldn't come up with a solution that was satisfactory, they turned to Alexander Hamilton with the dilemma. He soon proceeded to draw up a full report entitled "Report on Public Credit." In this paper Hamilton proceeded to show that the only way for a new government to establish credit was to deal honestly with its creditors -for in many cases they would be the people to whom the government must look to for future loans.

Cults Essay -- essays research papers

Cults have become a phenomenon in our world today. Each year "hundreds of Canadians join some of the 3,000 unorthodox religions of one type or another" (Fernell, Branswell, 189) all across North America. Like every organization, club or even in the common work place there is usually a person who is a figure of authority or other wise know as a "leader" and with every leader there are always rules and objectives that each and every member has to do and follow. The common psychological profile and objective of a cult leader is usually based upon power, control, domination and subjugation. Many cult leaders use forms of mind control such as thought-reform, brainwashing and hypnosis. The effects of these mind controlling techniques often mentally scar people and it is very hard to re-gain control of what use to be their â€Å"normal† personality, way of thinking and life. Unselfishness, kindness, gentleness and compassion should be a basic living principle, not just an ideal. When individuals claim to be â€Å"spiritually developed and put themselves in the role of a master or prophet† (Hassen, 01) cult members â€Å"become so subservient to their leader that they even tolerate murder† (Fennel, 185). Destructive cults want to have control and power over people and want to expand their temporal power and usually do it to make money. Leaders exist to serve totalistic dictators, not to serve the people and desire to rule through power, not with the power of love. Charismatic leaders often stray into temptation to exploit their power over others in many dangerous ways. The cult leader often relies almost entirely on rules, procedures, aggression, denial and mimicry to hide their lack of people skills. Cult leaders are able to exert a hold over people for a variety of reasons. The members sometimes feel they belong to a group or "family& quot; because they feel secure and have a new way of thinking and believing the "real" way the world is or should be and as â€Å"the leader’s actions become more bizarre, so do the cult’s members† (Fennel, 186). Many people are thought to believe that the only type of people to become influenced or brain washed into joining a cult are those that are insecure, lonely and nieve. However, the people cult leaders actually strive for are the bright, intelligent people whom usually have 2-3 years of college or university... ... at a party or on a bus ride can be supportive. Supporting is listening and empathizing with the ex-member with out the offering of unsolicited options. Simply being there is one of the best ways anyone can help. The hunger for spiritual guidance and religious truth is usually what drives people into exploring many of the different existing religions all over North America and in other parts of the world. Many problems tend to arise when the leaders of these cultic groups proclaim themselves to be living embodiments of this truth. The many great dangers of cults lie in the leap one must take from embracing religious truth, to worshipping a person claiming to be this so called â€Å"truth†. The danger of these cults increase rapidly when the person promises salvation, redemption or perfection in exchange for money, goods and services. Once a person begins giving in to the leader and the rest of the cult members, the stronger their grasp becomes upon the person and the harder it becomes to leave the group. Victims (ex-cult members) â€Å"can and should be helped with both the induced and pre-existing aspects of their problem, at the appropriate points in treatment† (Clifford, Gold berg p 03).

Churchill Was A Great War Leader Essay

In the fateful spring and early summer of 1940 the people of Britain clustered around their wireless sets to hear a defiant and uplifting speech from their new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. On May 13th, having just assumed the burden of power from a, â€Å"weak and cowardly† Neville Chamberlain, Churchill promised a regime of â€Å"blood, toil, tears and sweat.† On June 4th After the evacuation of the defeated British Army from Dunkirk, he pledged, â€Å"We shall fight on the beaches.† On June 18th he proclaimed that even if the British Empire were to last for a thousand years, this would be remembered as its â€Å"finest hour.† Over the course of the ensuing months Britain alone defied the vast conquering appetites of Hitlerism and, though greatly outclassed in the air, repelled the Luftwaffe’s assault with a handful of gallant fighter pilots. This chilling engagement-â€Å"The Battle of Britain†-thwarted Nazi schemes for an invasion of the island fortress and was thus a hinge event in the great global conflict we now call World War II. Before the start of World War II Winston Churchill had already completed many great achievements, which some people could not complete if they were allowed to live twice. When Winston Churchill was born in 1874 his parents did not have any time for him and he spent most of his time with his nanny. In school he rebelled and had no time for Maths, Latin or Greek, the school he attended was Harrow on the outskirts of London. He did not get on well with the other students and he recalls how he once had to hide behind a tree while fellow students threw cricket balls at him. After this he vowed to be strong, as strong as anyone could be. He later entered the Royal Military School at Sandhurst and passed with honours. When he was eighteen Churchill jumped off a bridge and fell 29 feet whilst being chased by his brother and cousin, thus showing his strength and determination. While doing this he ruptured a kidney and was unconscious for three days and could not work for two months. Then when Churchill turned twenty, his father died and shortly after Churchill was appointed as second lieutenant in the 4th Queens Own Hussars, a regiment of the British Army. As he turned twenty-one Churchill reported on military happenings throughout the world in countries such as Cuba where he travelled with the Spanish Army. In 1896 when his regiment was sent to India, he secured a temporary transfer to the turbulent North West Frontier where a tribal insurrection was under way. When the Boer War (1899-1902) broke out in South Africa he went as a journalist, was captured by the Boers while defending an ambushed train and imprisoned in a military prison. His subsequent escape made him a national hero. In 1900 he was elected to Parliament as a member of the Conservative Party. Churchill’s support of free trade against Joseph Chamberlain’s tariff proposals led to his defection in 1904 to the Liberal Party. Through out these years he wrote and published five books, which were all based on his accounts and newspaper articles, they were very successful and echoed his oratorical skills, which later proved a great success. When war broke out in 1914 Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and already a major national figurehead. As Europe was thrown into stalemate Churchill strongly suggested a huge flanking attack of Turkey through the Dardanelle’s. But his attempt to force the straits using only ships floundered, leading to the awful Gallipolli landings and costing Churchill his job. Instead of laying low Churchill pulled himself together and joined the Western Front. In January 1916 he was appointed Lieutenant Colonel commanding the 6th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers. Between 1922 and 1924 Churchill left the Liberal Party and rejoined the Conservative Party. To his surprise he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in Stanley Baldwin’s government, a position he held until the Tory defeat in 1929. During the 1930’s Churchill fell out with Baldwin over India’s greater self-government and was yet again more isolated in politics. His dire warnings about Hitler and the dangers of the appeasement policy fell on deaf ears. Churchill had been out of the government for nearly ten years by the time war broke out in September 1939. Chamberlain was furious at the fact that Churchill’s theory had been proved correct. The mood of the people and Parliament changed so Chamberlain reluctantly made Churchill First Lord of the Admiralty. Winston Churchill possessed such impressive oratorical skills that historian Arnold Toynbee believed his wartime speeches were absolutely essential to the Allied victory in WWII. During the darkest days of the war, Churchill’s words, so expertly crafted, so superbly delivered, buoyed the spirits, and restored the resilience of the beleaguered English people. When the U.S. Congress voted to confer honorary American citizenship on Churchill in 1963, President Kennedy said, â€Å"He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.† There is no doubt that some of Winston Churchill’s ideas were impractical and extremist, but on the other hand some of them were very well thought out and took a lot of planning and preparation. He was surely right; that the generals were slow and tried to plan their attacks to solidly. Without Churchill’s eagerness Britain would have fallen back into an even more defensive state. Had the war ended in 1940 (as some people hoped it would, even though this would of meant sacrificing Poland in the light of Czechoslovakia) we would have never known Churchill as he is known today, he would have been an average First Lord with part responsibility for the embarrassing failures of the Norwegian campaign. By a strange turn of events, this increased failure made Neville Chamberlain extremely unpopular and gave Winston Churchill the perfect opportunity to stake his claim. On the 8th of May 1940 the Commons met for a meeting over the poor performance of the Government’s campaign. After a powerful speech from Lloyd George, Chamberlain resigned. On May the 10th the phoney war ended when Germany invaded France and the lower countries, Churchill was announced as the new Prime Minister. Churchill’s reign begins. Churchill was chosen for the job of Prime Minister not for his appeasement, but for his all round knowledge and past experience making him perfect for the job. An example of this is his days in Cuba where he miraculously escaped from the group holding him and was pronounced a national hero. His survival and leadership in WW I made him an asset to the British Government. He was brave, had no fear of Hitler, and was determined from the start to bring him down. His training at the Military School and his past education gave him more than enough qualifications for this situation. He was the man they had been waiting for. C.V. for Winston Churchill’s War Experience: 1874 – Born 1888-92 – Harrow School (a public school) 1893-95 – Sandhurst Military Academy 1895-99 – Soldier 1899 – Journalist in South Africa 1900 – Elected Conservative MP 1904 – Joined the Liberal Party 1905-08 – Junior Minister 1908-15 – Cabinet Minister (held 4 different posts) 1917-22 – Cabinet Minister (held 3 different posts) 1922-24 – Fails to be elected MP 1924 – Returns to the Conservative Party and elected MP 1924-29-Cabinet Minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer) 1929-39 – MP on backbenches 1939-40 – Cabinet Minister 1940-45 – Prime Minister 1945-51 – Leader of the Opposition 1955-65 – Prime Minister 1955-65 – Retirement until death The people needed a leader and if they were going to be put through the britches of war then they needed someone powerful and determined, that person was Churchill. The people trusted Churchill due to his past experience and history of wartime situations. His repertoire of good deeds included the Battle Of Dunkirk, where he also visited bombed areas and offered people his sympathy. He also had strong relationships with other countries, which later came to his advantage. Strong alliance with Russia made him a partner in war duties. All of this would be enough, but Churchill also gave the public faith with his magnificent oratorical skills, which boosted British hopes and led them more determined into the bloody war. The Newspapers were also very unbiased towards Churchill and supported him as their leader; a good example of this is Source 7 where the title is ‘This Is The Man’ with a picture of Churchill by its side. Posters were also used to give Churchill a strong image, they used pictures of him as a bulldog and as a cowboy (Sources 9 & 11) to present Churchill with the image of a strong and fearless man, and this again was used to boost their faith in him. These all helped boost his image and made people respect and trust in him. Three men in this booklet have put down Churchill and they are Charmley, David Irving, and Clive Ponting. These men are mere historians working off the basis of facts and articles from the time; this means that what they say, their opinions are not totally accurate making them unreliable sources. I will start off with the information presented by Charmley, he has mixed views on Churchill, although he recognises Churchill’s achievements, he always finds away to put him down, here he says, â€Å"Lord Selbourne . . . had been impressed with his vision and power of drive and thought courage was his great asset but the motive power is always self and I don’t think he has any principles. He was clever but quite devoid of judgement.† Also, â€Å"For Churchill to castigate the Admirals for their lethagy and complete absence of positive effort in failing to come up with a workable plan is a fatal inability to distinguish what was practical and what was not . . .† The first quote shows how Churchill had impressed Lord Selbourne, but Charmley doubts his decision and questions Churchill’s principals and says he is void of judgement. This is not true as in World War II Churchill must have had to make many a judgement to stay on top of the enemy; judgment is an act which requires great skill and the art of knowing what your opponent may be thinking. One example of Churchill’s judgement skills is a time before the war when he told Neville Chamberlain that Hitler was not to be trusted, but Chamberlain ignored him thinking peace could be achieved, later Churchill’s judgement was proved correct. Quote two tells us how Churchill criticises the Admirals for their complete lack of effort and ideas being produced, and that the ones being produced are not good enough. He then goes on to say that it is Churchill’s fault for not being able to distinguish the difference between a practical, well thought out idea, to an idea that was completely imperceptive. This is suggesting he cannot distinguish the difference between a good or bad idea, which once again is incorrect and is used to make him appear a man who leaves everything to his Generals. Charmley always tried to create an image of Churchill as a man who had no idea of what he was doing, which is untrue as he alone inspired and led millions of men not only to death, but also to victory, something Chamberlain or other political leaders could not have done. Chamberlain had the ideal idea of peace and love where Churchill knew war was the only way forward, showing his vast experience over Chamberlain and Charmley’s ridiculous comments. Charmley although criticizing makes a few good points against Churchill’s ideas and plans, â€Å"At this stage of the war Churchill grossly overestimated what could be achieved by sea power. It was Churchill who fixed upon the Narvik as the object of the Allied campaign. The Norwegian campaign was flawed in concept and muddled in execution. The command structures might have been designed to result in chaos.† Charmley here outlines the flaws in Churchill’s plan, he tells us that the plan was overestimated and badly structured and that Churchill’s campaign had flaws in it from the beginning, showing that Churchill’s ideas were not all good ones and he was not always the great leader people said he was. Charmley then describes the ‘End Of Glory’ celebrations, â€Å"Pursuing the slogan ‘Victory at all costs’, Churchill was casually indifferent to what the costs might be.† â€Å"Churchill stood for the British empire, for British independence and for an anti-socialist vision of Britain. By July 1945 the first of these was on the skids, the second was dependent solely on America and the third had just vanished in a Labour victory.† Charmley at this point tells us that Churchill was celebrating his victory but the costs could have been very different. What Churchill stood for in 1945 was then either on a down, relying on America or vanished in the Labour victory. So everything Churchill once stood for was now gone. For Charmley this is was a good point about Churchill as it reflected the victory and joy that was in the country. Charmley then obtains a source from another interpreter such as himself and analyses it into what he thinks the truth is, â€Å"Whatever Churchill may or may not have done wrong, he had won the war, obtained the American alliance and helped save us all from the Soviets.† Charmley interprets it as, â€Å"Churchill did not win the war; the Russians did with help from the Americans. Churchill did not bring the Americans into the war, the Japanese and Germans did. Indeed, Churchill’s first ally was the Soviet Union, an unlooked-for-one who provided the western allies with a real problem when it came to claiming their war was a sort of crusade against totalitarianism.† This sums up Charmley’s image of Churchill, he always found faults in his plans and ideas. He outlines how the war formed itself around Churchill and that he did not win it single-handed as people seemed to think, Charmley shows that it had little to do with him. It all happened by the incidents around him, he just amplified them as his own achievements so he could mould the perfect image for later generations to come to know him by, as proved by Clive Ponting who is my next historian. Clive Ponting shows Churchill’s good and bad side, but he tends to favour against leaders and has an anti-establishment view. His two bad sources come of the Naval war ships, â€Å"In dealing with the U-boat threat Churchill continued with the sanguine opinion formed before the war that there was no longer a menace, he therefore opposed the convey system, wanting instead to reduce the number of escorts, and concentrate on what he optimistically described as â€Å"hunting packs† of destroyers to attack the U-boats while in transit. The results were almost a complete failure, although the merchant ships sinkings were, at about 10,000 tons a month.† â€Å"The Royal Navy tactics which rarely detected a U-boat and their attacks when they happened were largely ineffective, about a 5% success rate.† â€Å"The Americans gave 50 not 96 ships and they were explicitly given in return for bases. The bases were in seven colonies not three and were not commercial facilities but military bases on very long leases (99 years). And they had obtained an explicit assurance that, in the worst circumstances, the fleet would sail to North America, the one commitment Churchill had rejected ever since he became Prime Minister.† † In practice the US destroyers turned out to be of little immediate value. Only 9 out of the 50 were in service by the end of 1940 and only 30 by May 1941.† These sources are very lengthy but go into great depth on the situation of the warships and trading. It shows how Churchill’s plans were a complete failure and how the success rate was minimal for the Naval fleet. He wasted bases and money on warships, none very effective, when overall the British Navy was meant to be one of the strongest in the world. Churchill also shows disregard towards other people’s opinions. He shows this when he says, † Stop grinning at me you bloody ape!† To Captain Talbot when he dares to contradict him, Talbot was dismissed at 10 minutes notice, although this cannot be verified, as Ponting was not there at the time. Ponting then describes Churchill’s story of leadership in a good and bad way showing his mixed views of Churchill. â€Å"After May 1940 he had come to symbolise the nation’s resistance and had been readily endorsed as a wartime leader. In 1945 Churchill remained true to his limited view of politics.† The change in years still showed how Churchill’s ways of tackling the problem at hand and his views of people’s ideas had not changed and that he had stuck to the same attitude throughout the war. Ponting thought this showed Churchill as a powerful leader who would not yield on the work he was doing, but saw it through until it was finished. Ponting then says, â€Å"His inability to provide an inspiring message to the nation in the last years of the war demonstrated by his lack of broadcasts only increased popular perceptions that he was not the man to win the peace.† When I first started to read this it appeared to me it was criticizing Churchill as it starts off negatively, but as you read towards the end you see how this was to Churchill’s advantage as it won him respect and people thought of him as the man that was tough and not afraid to fight. This was well written by Ponting as it reflected Churchill’s image. This next section could be called Churchill’s image, â€Å"Churchill certainly saw his biographers coming and was determined to mould the view that later generations would have of his life.† This and various other quotes from the paragraph, show that Churchill would not let his hard work and devotion to the war go unnoticed and wanted to make sure people heard about his accomplishments for many years to come. Churchill with his oratorical skills virtually wrote the biographies for the publisher. Clive Ponting is a good historian as he uses the facts and evidence of the events; he discusses and does not have a one-sided view, he uses multiple views, good and bad, giving reason and evidence. Unlike Charmley who has a very anti-establishment view of Churchill and leaders in general. We now come to our last historian David Irving. There is only one source in this book from David Irving but I felt it relevant to include him as it contained pertinent arguments and claims, â€Å"Churchill thought he was somehow above international law. The situation he argued gave Britain the right and duty to abrogate the very laws she sought to reaffirm by attacking German ships in Norwegian waters; forcing the French to transfer German POWs to Britain; attacking the French fleet and recommending the use of dum dum bullets and poison gas. Irving points out Churchill’s defiance in obeying the rules they were trying to re-establish. Fair play was not an option to Churchill; it shows how he went into international waters without permission and threatened his allies into giving him what he wanted, he liked to be in control of what was happening. Having the prisoners of war also gave Britain a cautious edge in case France was taken over; Britain still had a bargaining option. This gave Churchill the image of being a bully and ruthless leader, one who took tremendous risks. Irving through only one source manages to show the ruthless and deceitful side of Churchill, showing it was not all just fighting that helped Britain to victory but also his cunning plans. Irving is quite reliable as a source as he uses actual events and does not back these up by people’s comments, meaning it is purely his feelings on the matter. The other sources in the booklet are just different views of many people who all have their own interpretations, I chose these three as I found them to be the most intriguing and interesting to explain. There are some actual comments from Churchill himself and his colleagues but there are not many of them. Newspapers and posters just convey a tough image of Churchill, e.g. Churchill as a British Bulldog and a Sheriff. In conclusion I think no matter how you look at Churchill, he will always be considered a great man due to his commitment and encouragement to the armies which gave them hope and determination. He also drove the country through the war, something Chamberlain could not have done. Many of Churchill’s contemporaries and advisors tried to tell him what to do. He pushed all of these people aside and they did not respect him for it, they felt he was over ambitious. The people thought this was the image of a good leader, a strong man who made his own decisions. After the war was over everyone including world leaders, respected him and his decisions however far fetched they seemed at the time. He had got them through this most dangerous and trying time, he was a hero. The Historians I reviewed were correct in some of the things they said, for instance, when they give the good and bad points of Churchill and not just a one-sided view. Some of the quotes Charmley’s used were very biased against Churchill and seemed only to focus on the bad points of his career to make him seem a lesser individual. Irvine and Ponting both displayed good reliable points, showing his weaknesses and strengths. I can not call the contemporaries wrong because they do give crucial points, but also none of them actually say whether he was a good or bad leader, leaving the answer open for you to decide, but they do try and influence the way in which you answer. I would say the contemporaries were right in their opinions but everybody including the Historians had different views. Historians are more likely to be critical of Churchill than the people at that time as they were just happy to have won the war and read of his exploits in the newspapers. He to them saved their lives and they considered they owed him a great debt. Historians were not there and did not know the pressures he was under. They criticize him because people say he was a great leader and they try to put him down and show his flaws not just the good points. They show the public the truth about what happened, and what people of the time blanked out, due to victory and patriotism. Here are advantages and disadvantages of Churchill’s contemporaries and Historians: Advantages – Censorship, morale, newspapers, and victories. The need to believe in their leader. Disadvantages- Narvik campaign, ignored advisors, unworkable ideas, knew about bombings of places such as Coventry, USA took advantage of GB in lend lease agreement. If you notice the advantages are from or to people at the time. Disadvantages are from the historians. I think if you look closely enough into Churchill’s campaign you will find flaws, but nobody is perfect both the Contemporaries and the Historians have every right to question this but never should they say he was a bad leader, as he got them through and helped win the war, something no one else dared do.