The Role Of Nutrition On Martial Arts, Police And Military...

The Role of Nutrition in Martial Arts, Police Military Personnel By Will Brink | Submitted On May 19, 2005 Recommend Article Article Comments Print Article Share this article on Facebook Share this article on Twitter Share this article on Google+ Share this article on Linkedin Share this article on StumbleUpon Share this article on Delicious Share this article on Digg Share this article on Reddit Share this article on Pinterest Expert Author Will Brink For a considerable amount of time, nutrition has not played a prominent role in the life of many martial artists, police, and military personnel as a means of improving performance. Top athletes are always looking for an edge. Although the martial arts are more of a way of life and a life style than a sport per se, the needs of the martial artist are the same as that of the elite athlete. Mental aspects not withstanding (i.e. mental awareness, strategy, cunning, etc.), the need for speed, agility, strength, flexibility, and the ability to recuperate from tough workouts (and unforgiving sparing partners) is paramount to the success of athletes and martial artists alike. Police and military personnel can also have unique requirements that require them to perform at peak physical and or psychological levels. Over the past decade our knowledge of sports nutrition has evolved into a science that has swept the athletic world and has been partially responsible for the ever increasing numbers of athletes who are pushingShow MoreRelatedCorrectional Administration Reviewer18383 Words   |  74 Pagesor publicly for the purpose of appeasing a social group. 8. Deterrence. Cesare Becarria, the exponent of the Classical Theory contended that punishment is to prevent others in committing a crime. ï  ½ CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS OF PENALTIES Sec. 21, Art. IV, 1973 Constitution of the Philippines. Directs that excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor be cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. ï  ½ ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF PENALTIES OR PUNISHMENTS Natural Law. This originated from God (natural law) to enforceRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pagesunder which they labored to expand the career opportunities available to them at different times and in diverse settings. She places special emphasis on the important but often overlooked roles they played in politics, particularly those associated with resistance movements, and their contributions to arts and letters worldwide. Drawing on the essay collections and series on women in world history that she has edited over the past decade, Smith’s fully global perspectives make clear that evenRead MoreProject Mgmt296381 Words   |  1186 Pagesand techniques 6.1 Define activities 9.1.2. Responsibility matrixes 10.1 Communication planning (.2.3.4) [App. G-4] Chapter 12 Outsourcing 12.1.1 Procurement requirements [G.8] 12.1.2.3 Contract types 9.4.2.3 Conflict management 12.2.7 The art of negotiating 12.2.3.5 Change requests Chapter 13 Monitoring Progress Chapter 5 Estimating Times and Costs 6.4 Activity duration estimates (.3) 6.4.2 Estimating tools (.1.3.4) 6.3.1 Identifying resources 7.1 Activity cost estimates (

The Veldt Science Fiction or The Inevitable Future

In the past, families lived a technology- free life: waking up by the sounds of birds, communicating face-to-face, and walking in order to travel. Today, it is almost impossible to find means of entertainment not involving a colored screen. This demonstrates how modern technology has corrupted society. Despite the advantages of technology, it has contributed to an inactive population that is unable to think for themselves. Ray Bradbury was born on August 20, 1920 in Waukegan, Illinois. Bradbury won the Pulitzer prize in 2004 for his literary work, like â€Å"The Veldt.† The overall theme of Bradbury’s short stories and novels is that the world is undergoing a too rapid and pervasive technological change(Bradbury). â€Å"The Veldt† discusses†¦show more content†¦Bradbury contends that an existence heavily dependent on machines will cause as much strife as it eases(Hart). Hart supports Bradburys opinion of technology not always having a positive ef fect. Like the Hadleys, people today see technology as the crux for humanity. Both Bradbury and Hart agree that a utopiated home is destructive toward society and can only lead to suffering. The irony of the â€Å"Happylife Home† actually causing unhappiness contributes to this theme. Machiavelli mentions within his novel The Prince, that when humanity receives gifts and privileges they will likely turn on leaders. Similarly, Bradbury observes irony when Wendy and Peters greed results in reward, however, triggers the murdering of their parents. In the Happylife Home, a virtual room called the nursery allows the children to control what comes to life. They turn the room into an African veldt. ‘Dont let them switch off the nursery and the house,’ he was saying. Mr. and Mrs. George Hadley beat at the door†(Bradbury). The children trapped their parents in the veldt after their nursery privileges being threatened. This entire idea follows Nathaniel Hawt hornes observation of a sinful universal morality. When the children are threatened, they follow their inner selves leading them to violence and eventually the murder of their own parents. The Hadley childrens minds are only happy

Catherine II was Russia’s first ruler, who was considered as enlightened Free Essays

Catherine II was Russia’s first ruler, who was considered as enlightened. As a child growing up in Germany, she was given an enlightened education. She enthusiastically read ‘enlightened’ literature, and soon became a disciple of the enlightenment. We will write a custom essay sample on Catherine II was Russia’s first ruler, who was considered as enlightened or any similar topic only for you Order Now As Empress she continued to read the works of Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire. Although it is widely accepted that Catherine II was an enlightened despot, it has also been argued that she did nothing more than allow the continuation of policies that had began in the reign of Peter I; â€Å"Although she claimed to be an enlightened despot, Catherine II did no more than continue the policies of her predecessors. † Another argument as to why Catherine didn’t carry out more enlightened reforms was due to her not wanting to make these enlightened reforms; the policies that Catherine II adopted were not adopted because of her beliefs, and/or her desire to create an ‘enlightened society’, but were instead taken out to maintain her power, and to satisfy her vanity. Historians like Harris claim that Catherine only appeared to be enlightened to enhance her reputation with the philosophes. This view is also taken by R. Charques, who states that the â€Å"enlightenment in Catherine was not much deeper than her vanity; despotism on the other hand was implicit in her ambition. â€Å"1 There has also been the case that Catherine had recognised the danger of going too far and/or too fast. She had experience the downfall of her husband for doing just that. As H. Nickelson puts it â€Å"No despot was ever more subtly aware that politics is the art of the possible and that everything can be lost if a states mangoes too far, or too fast† Another valid argument is that Catherine became more conservative, and less willing to change the laws of Russia, on the lines of the enlightenment, as she got older, and had come to realise the scale of problems which faced Russia. The enthusiasm with which she began her reign soon faded as the reality of Russian backwardness and it’s intolerance to change sank in. Harris sums up this point: â€Å"she coarsened with the exercise of power, her early idealism was abandoned as she learnt to understand the complexities of the Russian situation, and thus her enlightenment was only skin deep† A Key limitation to her ‘enlightening’ Russia was the role that the nobility played in supporting and maintaining her power. Although the aristocracy were glad to be rid of the ‘insane’ Peter III, Catherine had no claim to the throne. Many in Russia believed that she should only be regent for her son Paul, or that the ex Tsar Ivan IV should be re appointed. However with the support of the nobility Catherine could retain power for herself. But without the support of the nobility there was always the danger of the army who had so easily placed her on the throne could just as easily displace her. With all these limitations on her power Oppenheim asks: â€Å"would she attempt to put into practice some of her modern ideas about which she had read, or would she continue to govern Russia in the traditional mannor. â€Å"4 Since the death of Peter I, the nobles had slowly begun to increase their powers. Their compulsory state service, which Peter I had set up, was firstly cut to twenty-five years in the reign of Anna, and later in the reign of Peter III it was completely abolished, for that of hereditary peers, thus securing the role of the nobility in Russian society. Immediately after the death of Peter I there was an attempt by some nobles to restrict the power of the crown, via a supreme secret council. Cowie claims, † It consisted of six members drawn from the old and the new nobility. It’s powers included complete control of legislation, but it aroused such opposition from the nobility that these had to be restricted. â€Å"5 It is clear to see that the nobility then were powerful enough to attempt to limit the autocracy, which Peter I had established. However their own class opposed them, which left the councils power restricted. The supreme council tried some years later to limit the power of the monarchy. Upon the nomination of Anna as Empress, she was presented with a document that she had to sign in order to be crowned. This document would have allowed the nobles to have a share in how the state was run. â€Å"This would have been to turn her into a constitutional monarch. â€Å"6 Cowie also agrees with this statement; â€Å"If put into practice these proposals would have replaced Russian autocracy by an oligarchy. â€Å"7 However the document didn’t carry the mass support of the nobility. Again the nobility, which had the power to initiate a constitution, also had the power to stop its implementation. The ‘constitutional rights’ they requested in 1730 were more restrictive on the crown than those they had asked for in 1725, which supports the idea that the nobles had increasingly gained power after the death of Peter I. In 1730 the Privy Council itself went against the wish of Empress Catherine I (who had nominated her daughter Elizabeth if Peter II should die) and instead choose and crowned Anna Duchess of Courland. Not only was central government under more influence from the nobility, but local government too was rapidly falling back into the hands of the nobility. During the reign of Peter II the nobles who ruled on behalf of the boy- tsar, began to take back some powers in local government which Peter I had taken away. As Harris Puts it † if Peter II had lived long, all of the work Peter the great had done would have been undone. â€Å"8 Cowie also argues this point; â€Å"the reign of this boy czar was a triumph for the conservative nobility. † After the death of the Empress Elizabeth in 1762, Peter III became Tsar, and Catherine became his Tsarina. During his short reign Peter managed to alienate the Russian nobility in particular the guards and the army. He even antagonised the church and the senate. Dukes claims, â€Å"the guards could still make an empress or break an emperor. â€Å"10 He goes on to say that Catherine had the support of these valuable guards and could control them through Orlov, her lover at the time, and that she used this power to overthrow her husband Peter III. Madarianga agrees with Duke’s statement, she claims that â€Å"Catherine’s many friends in the army joined in a plot to dethrone Peter III, and seized power with her full approval and participation†11 During the coup of 1762 the support of the nobility ensured the quick and efficient disposition of Peter III, which according to Oppenheim was virtually bloodless, and an easy victory for Catherine, in which the crown was practically offered to Catherine. Oppenheim the claims that the experiences of a poor ruler like Peter III meant that â€Å"Catherine could only expect to retain as long as she able to demonstrate that she was an effective ruler. This argument has also been supported by Lentin; â€Å"as such she remained permanently dependant on the good will of the nobility who could dethrone her as easily as they had raised her up. â€Å"13 I too agree with both Lentin and Oppenheim, as Catherine’s first priority was to safeguard her own position, because those who had enthroned her could just as easily dispose of her. Harris on the other hand claims that Catherine could rely on the devotion of those who had gotten her in to power, and also on the fact that Russia was accustomed to an autocracy, and therefore would not have had to worry about appeasing the nobility. I disagree with this claim, although Catherine could rely on the devotion of the conspirators she still had to maintain the support of the rest of the nobility. As Lentin writes â€Å"It was after all, for antagonising the nobility that her husband and her son each met his death. â€Å"14 Catherine had watched the downfall of Peter III, and wasn’t going to make his mistakes. On coming to power Catherine had inherited a nation whose workforce was predominantly conscripted. The serfs worked for the nobles, and although in theory Catherine was against serfdom, she knew few nobles would support her in any move to free the serfs. Oppenheim claims that Catherine knew that â€Å"abolishing or even reducing serfdom would entail enormous social upheaval and violent protests from the nobles; and that she lacked the administrative machinery and armed forces to enforce such a reform against their wishes. â€Å"15 Princess Dashkora also tells of the noble’s unwillingness to emancipate the serfs she wrote, â€Å"a noble would have to be out of his mind to voluntarily surrender the source of his own prosperity. Madarianga disagrees with Oppenheim she says that Catherine is criticised â€Å"for giving away thousands of free peasants to her favourites and public savants, thus enserfing them†. This view is also taken by Harris who claims that the Russian occupation of the Ukraine â€Å"brought with it the oppressions of state power, taxation, forced labour and serfdom†17 Lentin takes neither views he instead takes the view that the circumstances prevented Catherine from helping the serfs not the nobles; â€Å"The gulf between noble and serf was had grown too wide for Catherine to bridge it. Faced with such an impasse she could do nothing. â€Å"18 I agree with both Harris and Madarianga because Catherine introduced serfdom to parts of her empire where it did not exist, where the nobles would not have pushed for it. On her own estates and lands the condition of the serf also worsened. By the end of her reign over a million people were enserfed by Catherine. Catherine was brought closer to the nobility in 1773-75, during the Pugachev revolt. Lentin states that the revolt made the â€Å"autocracy and the nobility wield together in a common self defence. â€Å"20 Harris also suggests that the Pugachev revolt aligned Catherine with the nobility; â€Å"her autocracy had been shown to rest squarely upon the support of the nobility. Stephen Lee has commented that the Pugachev revolt was an important stage in her reign, which made her see the extent of Russia’s problems. This is said to have forced her to abandon radical social reform, and instead maintain the existing social structure. Oppenheim has also claimed that the Pugachev revolt made Catherine more dependent on the nobility â€Å"the revolt undoubtedly increased social division and made both Catherine and the nobles aware of their dependence on each other. â€Å"21 The Pugachev revolt prompted Catherine to declare that she was â€Å"an aristocrat, it is my duty, and my profession. † The Pugachev revolt showed Catherine that she needed the nobility to maintain peace, stability, law and order. Thus at this point much of her enlightened were abandoned in order to appease the nobility and to reward them. The Pugachev revolt showed the need for a more efficient local government, as Pugachev’s early successes were due to poor local administration. Catherine changed Peter I’ system of government, which brought the nobility under the central government, to a system which enlisted the co-operation of the nobility in the running of local government. This gave the nobles the authority to govern the provinces in co-operation with central government. Harris sums up this point â€Å"Central government was recruiting from the nobility; they appointed the nobility to be governors and councillors, and the latter ruled the provinces in co-operation with the local nobility. â€Å"22 Oppenheim argues that Catherine had not given away any significant power away in the reforms of 1775 â€Å"since it was still the governor appointed by her who made all the noteworthy decisions at a local level. â€Å"23 Treasure sums up Oppenhiem’s point â€Å"skilfully Catherine presented the with the semblance of government†¦. She preserved the real power for those she chose the governors. † I agree with Treasure that Catherine retained the real power herself, while appearing to appease/ give in to the nobles. The reforms of 1775 bound the nobles to the crown closer than ever before. The reforms of 1775 led directly to the charter of the nobility 1785. â€Å"Her recognition of the shared interests of Tsar and the nobles was made explicit in the charter of the nobility. â€Å"24 The charter established the social pre-eminence of the nobility, and recognised them as a privileged caste with defined rights. Harris claims that â€Å"by recognising the privileges of the nobility, her own autocracy was left unchallenged, and with the support of the nobility she made Russia the dominant state in Eastern Europe†25 Oppenheim takes the viewpoint that â€Å"to her the charter meant that there was a firm legal basis for the social structure in Russia, instead of the archaic social system of Peter the great. For a ruler intent on giving Russia an enlightened and rational system of government this was a necessity. â€Å"26 Alexander claims that the charter didn’t increase the power of the nobility it merely confirmed in law the power they already had. I agree with Harris that the charter had aligned Catherine with the nobility. Any threats of a coup by the noble receded. The nobles had received what they wanted, secured privileges and status. Catherine had ensured that she retained all significant power. As Oppenheim puts it â€Å"The nobles now worked as willing junior partners of state, instead of unwilling servants of Peter I. Catherine II’s achievements in her reign were coniderable. However she is often critised for being insincere e. g for not bring about the sweeping reforms that she had advocated at the start of her riegn. Many of her critics question just how genuine Catherine really was. Many historians now believe that Catherine wasn’t a true disciple of the enlightenment, but instead used the principles of the enlightenment to advance her own popularity, and to satify her own vanity. Lentin supports the idea that Catherine wasn’t a genuine enlightened despot. He goes as far to say that Catherine was a hypocrite, who used â€Å"enlightened slogans as amask to conceal unenlightened policies†27 Harris supports the notion that Catherine was not truly an enlightened despot, but was instead concerned with her reputation with the philosophes and Western Europe. He tells us that Catherine was at great pains to show herself as an apt pupil of the disciples. Oppenhiem also agrees with Harris that her policies contradicted many of her writings. The Nakaz in particular was hypocritical, designed purely to impress the western philosophes. This helps to explain why very few of her ideals which shehad once read about were ever put in to practice. In some cases Catherine actually did the opposite to what the enlightenment proposed. Catherine made Russian society even more unfair. She cemented the privileges of the Russian nobility in law. As Shennen puts it â€Å"The liberties of the nobles constituted the liberties of a state or class and had significance precisely because other segments of the population, notably serfs, did not share them†28 On the other hand Blackwood suggests that Catherine was a genuine reformer, however the problems that faced Russia prevented her ideas from becoming a reality. James White supports Blackwoods claim, and he writes â€Å"altogether it is fair to describe Catherine as almost certainly enlightened in her wishes. 29 Andrews sums up both Blackwood and white’s argument; â€Å"Catherine was evidently influenced by the ideas of the philosophes but the size of Russia, the political power of the nobles and her own programme of conquest all prevented their being put into practice. † I personally agree with the argument that Catherine was genuinely ‘enlightened’, and that the reason why she couldn’t incorporate enlightened reform into Russian law was the complexities of the Russian situation. Catherine herself put this predicament well, when she wrote to Diderot; â€Å"With all your great principles which I understand very well, one would make fine books but very bad business. You forget in all your plans of reform the diference in our positions; you only work on paper which endures all things, but I poor Empress, work on the human skin which is irritable and ticklish to a very different degree. † â€Å"The most important reason why Catherine II could not achieve her enlightened ambitions was her dependence on the nobility. † To what extent do you agree with this view? How to cite Catherine II was Russia’s first ruler, who was considered as enlightened, Papers

Performance analysis of Murder at the Manor Essay Example For Students

Performance analysis of Murder at the Manor Essay The performance â€Å"Murder at the Manor† was an eccentric and comic piece of theatre. It was very interesting and fun to watch. There is a lot to say about the set, costume, sound, lighting, characters, and units of action, dialogue, pacing, director and special effects.  The set was a house, a living room with a sofa, a plant, and a picture and barely furnished. Everything happened in that room, there was no change of set. It was a simple set that created a natural atmosphere. The objects added to the atmosphere but didn’t distract the audience. The actors were not always on set, some spoke offstage and you could hear people walking on stairs. When they were on stage it was in that room. The clothes and costumes were adapted to the character and brought out their personality. They all mixed together in a party which looked more like a fancy dress as the costumes were a little bit over the top. Because the costumes contrasted with each other they gave a very comic appearance. The costumes didn’t have a very memorable sense of color but were enough to give an impression of the characters. There was no background music but there were some sound effects that were used effectively. The sound effects were used in the right way to lighten up the atmosphere. They were supposed to be comic and succeeded in their intended purpose. One example of this was a catchphrase, which was used around 10-12 times. Every time the main actor who was playing the role of a Greek man (Georgios Smoothiakous) said: â€Å"I am a big, strong and hairy Greek man† there would be a sound effect followed by an action. We came to believe that every time he said that sentence we were to expect the sound effect. It worked very well in that context as the play was very stereotypical. The lighting was not very interesting and was the same throughout the whole show. It was a white-yellow light, which was not very bright but not too dim either. The lighting didn’t really make an impact on what we were seeing or any unexpected surprises. It didn’t give away any information and wasn’t very noticeable. Maybe if the lighting used were more varied it would have given a bigger surprise factor. There were five actors that played the main roles. The actor that played Georgios Smoothiakous (the host of the party) exaggerated his movements and accents to make it more comic. The actors took their roles and used what they knew of these types of people to make them so embellished that they weren’t even believable anymore. For example an innocent blonde girl took her being blonde and rich to a new level. All the characters were so different that all of them exaggerated mixed into a huge humorous play. The most memorable moments were definitely the ones that were the most funny ones and of course the improvisation. The improvisation was when some members from the audience were asked to go on stage and behave in a certain way. The expressions on their faces as they struggled to improvise correctly were just terribly funny. The actors that exaggerated their roles did so in a manner that was really unforgettable. Of course, the first murder was not a shock as everyone had already said they wanted to kill Georgios but all the same it was very well thought out. The dialogue was informal and very natural. In this production there were lots jokes and puns. This made the dialogue seem very conversationalist. The way that they spoke to each other was very unique and individual in their own way. Sometimes in the middle of a conversation or monologue, the actor would pause and speak to the audience. I think that this worked very well in this type of context. In any other play the interruptions of the flow would be disturbance and annoyance to the audience. In this case it just helped the flow as the dialogue was very easy to understand and the speaking to the audience involved the people more and got them more interested. .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c , .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .postImageUrl , .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c , .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:hover , .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:visited , .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:active { border:0!important; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:active , .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u8b91ec479cd0fa46fa720de0842ef66c:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Advertisement project EssayI don’t think that there was a large contrast between the pace and timing of the show. At times it was more noticeable than others but at o point there was a very large difference in the pace and timing of the performance. The play developed at a steady speed and worked it’s way through the start, complication, solve and then the end. Because of all the comedy, it didn’t really need a contrast in the pace to make the play more interesting. There was one actor that played a double role. He played two men, he played the main character Georgios Smoothiakous and when he dies he plays the Inspector Clueless. There could have been a lot of trouble getting the two personalities mixed but the play went well without any disturbances. There was another actor who played the role of Apfel Von Strudel. His character in the play was masqueraded as a woman as well and I guess you could count that as a double role. When he played the woman as well it worked quite well and he was a good actor so he made it seem not too realistic but not completely unbelievable either.  In conclusion the play was very well done and comic. In the areas that I described it did very well and I really enjoyed it. It was funny enough to laugh and everyone had a good time but with an element of learning as well.