Alice in Wonderland Essay Example

Alice in Wonderland Paper There he was alone in the corner of the garden leaning backwards on his deckchair. The sun is shining and the weather is sweet. The type of weather he was looking forward to for his pigeons. They hated the cold. He never seemed the same without his favourite granddaughter, like there was something missing. After all he had only himself and his memories to keep him company. Nobody bothered about him anymore, only his daughter, who to be honest he did not appreciate. He found her attitude towards him annoying and condescending. She treats him like a child. Nobody enjoys being treated like a child, being bossed around all the time, and being patronised. He was contemplating on the past. He had not seen his granddaughter since the day she left home and moved on with her life. She is married now, nobody was there to see the big day, just her and Steven. He began to think back to the day when he realised he had lost her forever I can remember that day as if it was yesterday, the sense of the garden was warm and welcoming, the trees were bristling in the wind and the pigeons were fluttering in their dovecote. Everything was going fine. We will write a custom essay sample on Alice in Wonderland specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Alice in Wonderland specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Alice in Wonderland specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer I was in the garden playing with my bird, admiring its plumage. I loved all of my birds. But this one was my favourite out of them all. It was a special bird to me, I had had it for over five years and I never wanted to let it go I never wanted it to fly the nest. Just like I never wanted to let Alice go. I never wanted Alice to fly the nest, she, like the bird, is my favourite granddaughter I never wanted to see her leave me. But it was inevitable that she would leave that she would fly the nest like all my other granddaughters and forget about me just like them other them. I was powerless to stop her she never took any real notice of me. Alice and Steven were in love and at the time I was too childish and stubborn to realise it. I was trying to get my bird to fly. Then I saw them together. I stopped my bird spreading its wings and leaving me just like I wanted Alice to do. I wanted her to stop spreading her wings and flying away. The bird and Alice were the two most important things in my life at that time. I would have hated to see either of them leave me. I did everything in my power to try stopping her from seeing Steven. I tried treating her like a child, talking down to her but she was too clever for me. She treated me like the child and I now accept that I was being childish. I was kidding myself I could not interfere with their relationship. I had to accept that she was growing and as she grew so did I. My acceptance of their relationship came clearer as the day went on and how I noticed how close they were to each other. I now realise that she was a young woman with a mind of her own she was never going to listen to an old fool like me. She responded to my childish antics in a mature manor and how you would accept a young woman to respond: she mocked my foolish words, laughed at me and made me feel ridiculous. And I did feel ridiculous. Who was I to tear their love apart? She and Steven were absorbed cooing birds and that is what she was trying to tell me that her and Steven are in love I was too foolish to understand. But I was trapped in my own selfishness. When Alice left I was left all alone with my pigeons and my daughter. She, always ordering me around and telling me what to do, treated me like a child. Lucy was always telling me to leave Alice and Steven alone but I could not. I was like the child demanding my own happiness. Watching the pair walking over to the Frangipani tree angered me. Linked by one another at the arm they truly were a pair and I could not prevent this. My adolescent behaviour was not working it was time to accept what they had was true love and no old fool like me had the power to break this bond. My granddaughter was being taking away from me in front of my own eyes. But I tried to prevent it. I told her that this Alice in Wonderland relationship would not go on forever. I tried telling her that a true relationship is not all about giggling and kissing and how one day she might find herself in a marriage that she cant break out off. Again she did not listen to my protests and again she mocked my foolish words and ridiculed me. I could see from her eyes that she found me annoying, she did not listen to me and as that day passed I began to realise that she was growing and how again I was powerless to prevent that. Asking me have I put my birds to bed, in that sarcastic tone of todays youth? She was right I had nothing better to do than to look after my birds.

Four Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

Four Advantages of Single-Sex Schools A lot of research has shown that single-sex schools have a great deal of advantages. for students, with benefits ranging from confidence and empowerment to new activities and higher levels of achievement. For example, on the whole, girls and boys who are educated in single-sex schools gain more confidence than their coed peers. In addition, they make academic gains above those in co-ed schools. They also learn to gravitate towards untraditional areas that are not always accepted for their gender. For example, boys learn to love literature in boys schools, while girls in girls schools feel more comfortable with math and science. Though its hard to generalize about all single-sex schools, here are some commonalities that tend to characterize many single-sex schools: A More Relaxed Environment Despite the fact that many boys and girls schools are at the top of their game academically, they often have a more relaxed environment. This relaxed environment is created, in part, because boys and girls dont need to worry about impressing the other gender. The students can be themselves in class, and they can speak openly and honestly. At the same time, students in single-sex schools are often more willing to take risks because they do not fear falling on their face in front of the other sex. As a result, the classrooms in these schools are often dynamic, free, and bursting with ideas and conversation, all hallmarks of a great education. While teachers in co-ed schools sometimes beg their students to contribute to class discussion, this is not true in single-sex schools a great deal of the time. Fewer Cliques Though it is not always true, sometimes single-sex schools can help reduce cliques, particularly in girls schools. The girls again do not have to worry about impressing boys or seeming popular, common concerns in middle and high school. They can instead concentrate on their studies and being open to befriending the other girls, and there are often fewer cliques as a result. Though the stereotype about boys schools is that they are rough-and-tumble places in which boys are hazed, the reality is often quite different. While one cant generalize about all boys schools, in general, boys schools are places that do not involve hazing or cruelty. Boys in an all-boys environment tend to  not form cliques because they dont have to appear cool, and they are often more generous to their peers as a result. In many boys schools, there is room for all kinds of boys, and the less socially mature students are not punished, as they might be in a single-sex school. A More Tailored Curriculum The teaching at a single-sex private school can be tailored to all girls or all boys, and the ability to tailor the curriculum allows teachers to design classes that have the potential to really reach the students. For example, at boys schools, teachers can teach books that are likely more of interest to boys and find books that speak to boys and their concerns. For example, a class discussion of Hamlet in a boys school can involve a study of a boys coming-of-age and of father-son relationships. In a girls school, students can read books with strong heroines such as Jane Eyre or look at books such as The House of Mirth  that touch on how womens lives are affected by prevailing attitudes towards women. While such discussions are possible in co-ed schools, they can be more open and concentrated in a single-sex school. The Loss of Gender Stereotypes In addition, students in single-sex schools can gravitate without embarrassment towards untraditional subjects. In boys schools, male authors can come in to speak about their writing, and the students can ask questions without feeling embarrassed about being interested in writing, a subject that they might shy away from in a co-ed school. The same holds true for the arts, including visual arts, music, drama, dance, and even digital arts. In a girls school, female scientists and mathematicians can offer their experience, and girls can be interested without fearing that they appear dorky or unfeminine. The examples of how single-sex schools free students from gender stereotypes are endless. In addition, teachers in single-sex school can use methods that might interest their students. For example, in a boys school, they can use techniques that draw on boys energy, while in a girls school, they can offer the kinds of feedback that girls are most likely to accept. While each child is different and there is no one school that is right for all kids, there is no doubt that single-sex schools offer a great deal of advantages and a special atmosphere that encourages kids to feel comfortable and to learn. Article edited by  Stacy Jagodowski

Journal Article about biology Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Journal Article about biology - Assignment Example Seals are moving from their habitats and migrating to other regions for comfort. Experts conclude that there would be the significant extinction of animal and plant species by the year 2100. Temperatures are rising by 3Â °C, it leads to melting of the ice caps which in turn results in the rise of the sea levels. Polar bears and emperor penguins are facing an extinction if the Arctic and Antarctic continue having a temperature rise (UNEP 3). The waters of the Arctic take longer to form ice again after it melts. The waters of the bays in the arctic take three weeks longer to be stable again than it was thirty years ago. The action affects the polar bears that prefer to hunt for their prey under the Ice Sea. The rising temperatures are having a noticeable impact on birds and butterflies. The butterflies and birds are moving and shifting their ranges by more than 200km northwards. Plants lag behind in their growth because of the rise in temperatures (UNEP 5). Plants and animals are suffering due to climatic changes, and others are risking extinction due to the climatic changes. There is no positive outcome of climatic changes to

Surveillance and Democracy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Surveillance and Democracy - Essay Example As seen in s8(2) there has been built into the statute several exceptions which leaves the law somewhat open to interpretation. Firstly, as held in Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14, the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence is not to be infringed upon unless there is statute to the contrary to which the citizens are aware. As stated in Taylor (2002) the EU court has been especially stringent with regard to personal communications (see Kopp v Switzerland (1999) 27 EHRR 91). In this case, the court held that state infringement upon private communications of the citizens displayed a serious breach against their right to a private life. The EU Convention of Human Rights has maintained that if there is to be a breach of citizen's right to private life it must be for a specific legal purpose, that is to say supported by legal statute. The last area to consider within the framework of the EU Convention of Human Rights is to ascertain the balance of individual citizens' rights against that of the greater good. In short, according to Taylor (2002) this balance requires a test of proportions, essentially measuring the pros and cons. In short, it is imperative that the state within the legal framework on a case by case basis weigh the facts and determine if the great good will outweigh the individual infringement upon an individual citizen. As stated previous the EU as found in the Human Rights Act and as discussed previous has upheld that any infringement must be legitimized by state statute. This was upheld with regard to the tapping of personal phones in the UK. In Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner No.2 [1979] 2 WLR 700 the court held that the police had used a wiretap to obtain information regarding the defendant's criminal activity. As the UK had no statute on the books legitimizing the wiretap and therefore infringement on the defendant's right to privacy with respect to personal communications the conviction was overturned upon appeal to the EU. Even though there had been prior precedent for wiretapping as established by the government without a binding legal framework, the EU found the legitimate exception rule had not been met. In an attempt to reactivity the lack of statute the UK passed the Interception of Communications Act 1985. However this act provide ineffective in providing the legal framework necessary to obtain little more than wiretaps for public telephones. In case and after case specific modes of communication were found to be exceptions to this law (i.e. cordless telephones, private networks etc). The statute was tested even further when the police used a listening device to obtain a confession and eventual conviction of a heroine smuggler. On appeal within the UK in (R v Khan [1996] 3 WLR 162, the court found that even if the confession were to be determined later to be in breach of s(8) the court could not justify overturning the verdict. The defendant did appeal to the EU and the court found t

Libya's Legitimacy Crisis Literature review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Libya's Legitimacy Crisis - Literature review Example Finally, the article articulated how the can be resolved as it offer an alternative of power sharing as a way to end the legitimacy crisis and in effect, the conflict that is tearing the country apart. The paper presented the two opposing power which technically now operates as governments vying for Libya’s legitimacy. One is the Tobruk based backed by the rump of the elected parliament, the House of Representatives (HOR). The other is based in the capital of Tripoli and has taken a de facto control over ministries the General National Congress (GNC) led by Khalifa Hifter, a former general in the Libyan Army with the agenda of purging the elites of the old regime and promoted the former revolutionary forces as the core of a new army. The theoretical positions outlined in the reading outlined in the readings contribute to the ongoing development of Foreign Policy Analysis by outlining in a simple manner how the division of Libya begun, the forces underlying it and the backers that made the situation more complex. By clearly outlining how the division begun and how external influences and backers such as UAE and Egypt for GNC and Qatar, Sudan and Turkey for HOR, made the situation more complication that could fuel the conflict more, the proposed solution became more feasible and plausible and even necessary. That is, to have a policy of noninterference that would include non-channeling of funds and arms embargo to make both parties realize that negotiation and compromise is the only way to go with the end in mind of forming a government that is based on power sharing and not on favoring one faction over the other.   The arguments presented by Frederic Wehrey  and  Wolfram Lacher were also objective, impartial and sober that invites the reader to look at the problem from a conciliatory point of view and not from the persuasion of either party. Even the United States who are often

The Passion Of The Christ Theology Religion Essay

The Passion Of The Christ Theology Religion Essay For the past 2000 years the Jewish people have been persecuted with extreme prejudice. They have been murdered for countless different reasons over the course of two millennia. The underlying reason for this hatred and racism has always been a belief that their ancestors were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This racism is literally an ongoing punishment for the supposed sins of the early Hebrews. In at least three of the gospels in the Christian bible there are differing accounts of the roles the early Jews played in the actual trial and execution of Christ. Needless to say, these passages remained controversial for as long as they have been committed to paper. There is speculation as to the validity of their claims as historical proof. A recent film about the final twelve hours of Jesus Christs life and death places these inconsistencies and the mistreatment of the modern Jews back into the spotlight. This alleged literal translation caused many contemporary Jews to cry out in protest over the hard-line depiction in Mel Gibsons new film The Passion of the Christ. Part of the reason this new film is causing so much controversy is because of Gibsons blatant reinterpretations and artistic license taken throughout the film. He tends to go out of bounds with the already tough Jewish public sentiment in regard to Christs death and creates a completely anti-Semitic work. Artistic license is acceptable when creating, but when the claim is made that the work will be a literal translation of the gospels, one looses the ability to fabricate and enters into a new realm of scrutiny. Mel took a copious amount of artistic license with this film, but he does not see it that way. In 1965, the Catholic Church via the pope in the Vatican declared, among other things, that the Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. This declaration is formally entitled Vatican II. It exonerates the Jews and condemns all those still seeking Jewish suffering. It directly affects the Catholics, which means that Gibson and his family, who are not Catholics, are not required to abide by these new dictates. Mel, his family and a group of others called The Holy Family, have decided that their particular form of Catholicism needed to be further amended and conservatively redefined. They practice the Trinitine Mass, an extremely conservative form of Christianity based on traditional Catholicism, and they openly reject the changes of Vatican II. In short, they still hold present and past Jews responsible in particular for the death of Christ. Mels father, Hutton Gibson, stated all the popes since John XXIII are illegitimate anti-popes, the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by Jews, and the Holocaust figure of 6 million Jews killed was an exaggeration (Schroth 2). He himself is a full-fledged member of this ultra conservative right wing theology and did nothing but illustrate their prejudiced philosophies to the media and an interested society at large. He is an accurate reflection of the ideals that helped to form the interpretations governing this film. Mels self-professed goals for this film were simple. Gibson claimed that his account would be historically truthful because it would be based on the Gospels (Schroth 3). He was unimpressed with previous attempts to depict the passion in film so he embarked on the journey of telling this story. He wanted to depict the scriptures literally and show the events the way they truly happened. Gibson funded his attempt with his own 25 million dollars and the rest was history. This is an attempt to influence his audience to believe that the sacrifice Christ made for humanity happened the way he and his Holy Family see it. By creating a flashy high-profile film he makes this subject popular and accessible to the secular world as well as the established Christian community. No matter what Gibson claimed to begin with he fell short of his publicly stated intentions. After viewing his finished product one can easily walk away with the notion that this is actually an Anti-Semitic film and not the truthful enlightenment of the Scriptures originally purported. First, because Gibson stated the film would be Scripturaly truthful one must stay alert, knowing that the film starts off on shaky ground. The bible is a huge collection of literal contradictions and potentially inaccurate historical events, the Gospels themselves, written between A.D. 70 and 100, are not reliable historical documents. They contradict one another on detailsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Schroth 3). These inconsistencies can and do become a damning problem when one begins to make claims using the bible as infallible support as Gibson does for the film. Second, people interpret the bibles same passages in many different ways. This is part of the reason that Christianity separated into so many factions at different times throughout history. It is the reason so many people believe they are acting within spiritual grace. While other Christians may think the same action would be deviating from the correct path. These differing interpretations have been a source of constant confusion for two millennia, with no end in sight. So when Gibson makes a movie based on the scripture it could contain almost anything, slanted and yet still hold validity and accuracy. However this does not mean it was the way the true events occurred in history. It means he is trying to make truth from what can be anecdotal metaphors without any real support for actual fact regardless of Scripture. Perhaps most intriguing here is that the bible is actually at odds, within itself, as to the actual culpability of the Jews. The four gospels do not agree with the role the Jews played in Jesus execution, the amount of Jews present during the entire ordeal and ultimately whether or not they are guilty at all. Gibson in his film removes all the bibles messy inconsistencies and forces the Jews to shoulder the responsibility themselves; all the while operating under the pretense that this is the most faithful rendition of Scripture yet. This is a condemnable offence by itself on Gibsons behalf. Gibsons film boasts several inconsistencies with the Bible. This is a rough point for a film, which was purported to be a truthful translation of the Scripture. If we accept the Bible as fact, as faithful Christians do, then we are instantly exposed to many small changes and artistic licensing. These new interpretations singularly may not present an offence, but collectively within the span of a two-hour film become impossible to ignore. Among the more prominent of these points in dispute with the facts as the bible presents them are the inclusion of the devil as a supporting character. He, or she in the film, does not enter even once into Christs final twelve hours at all. No matter how great Satan is as a metaphor for evil in general, he had no place here. The portrayal of Harrod as an unbelievably self-consumed man is acceptable. The problem there was removing a classic sense of blame which can be interpreted as guilt in the role he played in sending Christ to a certain death at the hands of Pilate. He became a nonentity that only slowed the progression of the story. The depiction of the irrational high courts evaluation and sentencing of Christ is not congruent with the scriptures as well. The court actually speaks words directly from scripture but acts in a way that makes them seem to be just a well-dressed addition to the radically insane Jewish mob. There is a thoroughly unbelievable Jewish mob, which defies b oth scripture in most cases and also reality throughout the entire film. With the exception of Jesus inner circle there is no scene in this film that does not feature throngs of Jews acting horribly by spitting, beating and ridiculing Christ. It losses effect after fifteen minutes and just becomes farcical. Jesus and his inner circle are not portrayed as Jews in this film. They read as something else entirely, but the truth is they were Jews and just the sign above Christs cross was not enough to show that. This subtle technique only further pushed the Jews into a corner of singular guilt. This was particularly ridiculous. The outright destruction of the throne and the Jewish temple with the high priests falling all over themselves was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The Bibles account only shows the sacred curtain being ripped down. Again, this is a real strike against the Jews with nothing to back it in terms of scriptural fact. Last, and very important to these minor ar guments was the extreme brutification of the criminal Barrabas. His role in the film is taken out of chronological order from the scriptures in all cases. This would seem minuscule, but it becomes profound, when in the film the Jewish mob chooses a disgusting known killer of Jews over a scourged and mutilated Jesus Christ. As opposed to how it actually takes place in scripture before the whipping. Again, all of these points are inconsistent with the Bible as a fact, and most of them are used to make the Jews look horrible, so that their sole blame can be easily established. The next and possibly most important point illustrating Mels disdain for the Jews is his treatment of the crucifixion, whipping and flogging in the film. In all four of the Gospels there is a description of the torture and execution of Jesus, but in only two of these accounts is he ever flogged. When mention of his flogging appears it is only included as an unelaborated fragment of another sentence. There is substantial doubt as to whether or not the scourging ever happened, let alone the flogging, but this is not how Gibson portrays this event. Gibson uses the bibles lack of detail as a green light to insert his own interpretations as he sees fit. He literally takes the sentence fragment from the two Gospels which mentioning a whipping, and recreates a seriously significant new transgression in Christs final trials. This newfound trial is then portrayed to be even more severe than the actual crucifixion itself, finally becoming Christs horrific true sacrifice. Gibson only had to rei nsert the Jews as the scapegoat decision makers and in the audiences eyes they would automatically take the blame for this horrifying act. This is a very subtle and true masterstroke on Gibsons part and it shows his deliberate intent completely. Gibsons doctoring of the Gospels accounts, reinterpretations of their clear passages and wholesale elaborations on their context becomes damning. It changes the movie from a literal interpretation of the Bible and creates a propaganda piece outlining one fanatical but skillful directors point of view: the Jews are not only responsible for Christs death but are guilty of an execution so brutal and a torture so heinous that it is literally unparalleled in human history. Furthermore, they should still be held accountable even now 2000 years later. Not only are these concepts ridiculous, but they became so polarized before the movie even released, that Gibson, probably realizing he had gone to far, cut out several lines from the film directly accusing the Jews of wrong doing. He knew he had crossed the line and would have an increasingly serious problem on his hands because the script pieces he removed were literal text from the Bible, not speculative fodder like many of his other treatm ents of the events. He must have truly understood that what he was doing was deplorable if he felt that cutting actual, literal text was acceptable when his goal was to make a truthful version of the Gospel in film. In order to understand how deeply Gibsons desire to defame the Jews runs, we need only examine the treatment of one of the movies main characters. Gibsons cruel intent is ironically tied to his saintly portrayal of the man Pontius Pilate. It is first important to note that all four of the Gospels are uniquely in unison on one thing: Pilate killed Jesus. Pilate made it his final decision to crucify Christ. If the whipping and scourging happened at all the way it did in the film, Pilate made that so. A small group of Jews 2000 years ago called for Christs execution, but it was Pilate who ordered it. Pilate is a monster, and he has always carried that reputation so fiercely that it is and has been common knowledge to Christians for 2000 years. It is Pilate who is responsible for Christs demise and not the Jews, but Gibson has another idea. For one very specific reason Gibson sees fit to take extreme artistic license once again with the facts as presented in the Bible and utilizes revisionist history to reinvent the monster Pilate into a good man. In his film Pilate is presented almost as a hero. He is the voice of reason and personifies logic. He is completed with a clichà © good-guy demeanor that is not at all the standard template for this dubious historical figure. Gibson plays him out in the film as a fine, moral Roman Tribune possessed of extraordinary logic and sympathy, struggling with a profound unwillingness to execute Christ amidst throngs of blood-hungry, insane Jews. Gibson manufactured Pilate into deity from an evil human being, and by doing that absolved Pilate of guilt. Pilates absolution was paramount to Gibson because it drives the nail home on the Jews. Gibson has carefully crafted many inconsistencies with the scriptures in order to create an even more terrifying version of Christs ordeals. With Pilate he removed any and all others associated with the wrongful death of Christ so that the burden would fall squarely on the Jews. There literally remains no third party to convolute the picture of now clearly established blame. Finally Gibsons grand-masterstroke can be revealed. The audiences horror with his extreme violent depictions of scourging and crucifixion will subconsciously transform into a basis of hatred against the Jews. This hatred of the character Jews in the film is probably intended to further proliferate a continuing Anti Semitic sentiment in both Christian and global Culture, perpetuating a 2000-year-old racial prejudice Gibson is an experienced master of his craft, which means that he acted deliberately. Nothing could have appeared in a film he produced, directed, financed and helped to write without his knowing and approval of every small detail. He can point no fingers here; there is nowhere to hide. All of his ugly subtleties were in the end, all to apparent to people with an open mind and an understanding of the facts as presented in the Bible. This is Gibsons true intent for this film, not historic truth based on the Gospels at all. Gibsons attempt to slander and blame the Jews either shows a profound lack of understanding or a scalding ignorance of the Christian faith on his part. He thinks he is a very devout Christian, but Christians believe in one very important thing: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he sacrificed himself to atone for all of mans sins. Gibsons film does not reflect this ideal. He blames the Jews directly, but they could not be directly responsible at all. This shows either his inability to accept the fact, or just a simple prejudice. The Jews are not guilty because all mankind is guilty. A true follower of the teachings of Christ knows this and acts accordingly. After all, Jews helped Christ to fulfill the prophecies needed in order to die for all mankinds sin. This could serve to shed a fresh, new, and positive light on the Jews; in the end they are Gods chosen people. Gibsons extremist mincing throughout the film works against his established intentions. His interpretations are shallow and transparent. They clearly show his prejudice towards the Jewish people, and he can only come off as an ugly person in the end. Intelligent people and open-minded Christians will not be swayed by the coercive piece of propaganda that The Passion Of The Christ is. It will insult them and their intelligence. Gibsons only stroke of brilliance involved with this project was displaying that he understood the psyche of the religious-right in the US. He knew how to strike up the publicity on this film. Not only did he get the hard-core right wing Christian community to back it without question, he drummed up an overwhelming amount of raw curiosity throughout the secular world. His story, the publicity, the controversy, the disagreements, the inconsistencies, earned him notoriety, acclaim and over 300 million dollars. That money may be the only true success he earns with this film, because anyone ignorant of Christs story will not be converted by this nonsense. They will just be confused about how his portrayal of Jesus could measure up to the man so many people worship as God.

Management of Email in a Government Agency Essay -- Email Management P

I often read technical journals and information management publications in print as well as web based articles or white papers. I like to educate myself as well as stay current on the most recent information on Information Management. I feel for my rhetorical essay it’s best to stick to what I know and what I’m familiar with. The article I chose to elaborate on comes from the January/February 2014 issue of Information Management , an ARMA Publication. It addresses the ongoing issues of email management and email retention. Most organizations, civilian and government struggle with the problem of email storage and email retention. In an ideal world it would be the desire of the organization to limit the amount of email and the length of email retention to an across the board timeframe, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10 years or longer for specific records. Although uniform retention periods are a goal and objective for many organizations, it isn’t very realistic for most government entities. Dr. William Saffady begins his article â€Å"Taking Control of E-Mail with Uniform Retention Rules† questioning the practicality of schedule-based retention periods for the management of email and electronic communication. He recommends an alternative system of managing email messages by adopting uniform retention rules. Dr. Saffady is currently Professor at the Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University in New Your City, where he teaches courses on information management topics. He is definitely well versed in his field and more than qualified in his assessment if email management. Although Dr. Saffady is well qualified to his opinion and make recommendations but I have to disagree with his as... ...urrently Cook County where I work have over 20,000 employees. The management of email for 20,000 employees is a huge task but one that must be taken seriously. References Arizona State Library of Archives and Public Records. (n.d.). â€Å"Guideline for managing public records sent and received via electronic mail†. http://www.azlibrary.gov/records/GuidanceAndRelatedResources/GuidelinesForManagingPublicRecordsSentAndReceivedViaElectronicMail.aspx Live Office – Your Archiving Experts. (2010 July). â€Å" Best Practices Guide for Email Retention.† Retrieved March 11, 2014 from http://www.liveoffice.com/sites/default/files/whitepapers/Best_Practices_Guide_for_Email_Retention_0.pdf Saffady, William, PhD., (2014) â€Å"Taking Control of E-Mail with Uniform Retention Rules† , Information Management, An ARMA International Publication, Volume 48, No 1, 20-26