Gangs, Belonging, and Acceptance Essay -- Gangs Family Lifestyle Essay

Gangs, Belonging, and Acceptance A 12-year-old boy comes home from school. He enters his home through the front door and notices his mother sobbing. There is blood on the tissue she's holding. The boy starts to ask his mother why she is crying when he realizes what has happened. She answers his silent inquiry about why, by quietly saying, "your dad . . . he's on the back porch . . . he's had a bad day." Feeling helpless he goes to his room. From his window he can see his dad taking in the last swallow of beer and yelling, loud enough for the neighbors to hear, "Hey, bring me another beer. And where is that worthless son of yours? He was supposed to mow the lawn yesterday." The boy, having seen this too many times before, leaves the house the way he came in. Two blocks down the street he is approached by a gang member; and unceremoniously another child on the block has decided that gangs have something he wants; a since of belonging, acceptance. The gang becomes his family. This story is fiction, but fits the dynamic s of a family system that supplies the gangs with its members. Gang-member families differ from non-gang-member families in terms of quality of family interaction, supervision and discipline, family affection patterns, and maternal attitudes toward males. Non-gang member's families are more likely to go out together, are more likely to be consistent in their discipline, and are more likely to display their feelings openly in the family. The mothers of gang members described their husbands as rarely involved in the family's activities. They also had more negative attitudes toward their husbands (Adler,Ovando, & Hocevar, 1984). The gang member is not the only one effected when he starts his life in a gang. He p... ...e? What can the church and the community do to help? If we can't save the gang member, what can we do to protect the innocent family member and by-stander? It's easy to do nothing when asked, "What can we do?" Maybe the question should be, "What can I do?" Works Cited Adler, P.,Ovando, C. & Hocevar, D. (1984). Familiar correlates of gang membership: An exploratory study of Mexican-American youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 6, 65-76. Morales, A.T. (1992). Latino youth gangs: Causes and clinical intervention. In L. S. Vargus & J. Koss-Chiono (Eds.). Working with culture: Psychotherapeutic intervention with ethnic minority children and adolescents (pp. 129-154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, Commander Bryan. Corpus Christi Police Department. (2-10-97) interview over phone. Subject: Psychological effects on gang members and their families.

Job Analysis and Selection Methods Essay

For this method to be effective the interviewer is required to ensure the interviee fully understands the reasons for the interview to avoid such interviews to be viewed as efficiency evaluation which may hinder them to describe their job accurately. The method can be utilized efficiently for top management job analysis for example the position of the managing director of a company. This would enable acquisition of vital information such as general purpose of the job, responsibilities, duties, education, experience and skills required. (Henderson, 1985) Advantages * It’s simple and quick hence it’s the most used method in the world. * It can reveal important information that might not appear in written form and information on activities that does not occur occasionally. It provides a chance for the interviewer to explain the importance, need and functions of the job analysis. * Can be used to generate qualitative data. * Suitable for jobs with long job cycles. (office of human resources, 2008) Disadvantages * Employees may distort information by exaggerating certain responsibilities and minimizing others. * Sometimes to obtain valid information can be a very slow slow and time consuming * Experienced interviewers and properly designed questions are required. Data gathered by the process is subjective and requires to be verified. * Combining data from discreet interviews is sometimes difficult. (office of human resources, 2008) STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD This method involves designing questionnaire and having employees fill them to describe their job related duties and responsibilities and rate them. Questions can be structured and employees given a list of specific duties and asked to indicate whether or not they perform them. Questions could also be open ended. The method can be used efficiently for job analysis involving low level management posts and junior employees for instance office assistants and semi skilled employees. This could offer a quick way to gather information from such large group of employees. (Henderson, 1985) Advantages * It’s a cheap way to gather information from a large numbers of workers than interview for instance. * Its quick and efficient method. * It does not require a trained interviewer. * Data collected is standardized. Disadvantages * Questionnaire development and testing is both expensive and time consuming. This provides quality and instant feedback on descriptive information of a candidate such as their strengths and weaknesses. Applicants are also given work sample which is a replica of the job and are required to demonstrate that possess the necessary skills and talents by doing the actual job. This offers a good evaluation of applicant’s abilities in actual job activities and thus helps to reduce discrimination. (Patrick Hauenstein, 2005) Weaknesses To develop good and accurate work samples for each job is difficult and time consuming. Work samples are also difficult to apply in managerial posts where it’s not possible to develop a work sample that can cover all activities. The process also requires highly qualified and assessors which are expensive to maintain. (Patrick Hauenstein, 2005) Validity Employment tests has been extensively used and shown to be an accurate method to predict a candidate success. The method is also very relevant to the job at hand and therefore widely accepted as compared to other methods. (Patrick Hauenstein, 2005) Reliability Employment tests are a reliable way of obtaining vital information about applicant’s abilities, and skills in actual job environment. They therefore tend to be accurate predictors of applicant later performance (Patrick Hauenstein, 2005) * REFERENCES Henderson, R. J. (1985). Compensation Management: Rewarding Performance. Upper Saddle River, N. J. : Prentice Hall. office of human resources. (2008). Compensation & Classification. South 2nd Street, Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota. Patrick Hauenstein. (2005). Employee Selection: Part 2 – Interviews and Simulations. Navient Corporation.

The Day the Mona Lisa Was Stolen

On August 21, 1911, Leonardo da Vincis Mona Lisa, today one of the most famous paintings in the world, was stolen right off the wall of the Louvre. It was such an inconceivable crime, that the Mona Lisa wasnt even noticed missing until the following day. Who would steal such a famous painting? Why did they do it? Was the Mona Lisa lost forever? The Discovery Everyone had been talking about the glass panes that museum officials at the Louvre had put in front of several of their most important paintings in October 1910. Museum officials said it was to help protect the paintings, especially because of recent acts of vandalism. The public and the press thought the glass was too reflective and detracted from the images. Some Parisians quipped that perhaps art such as the real Mona Lisa had been stolen, and copies were being passed off to the public. Museum director Thà ©ophile Homolle retorted you might as well pretend that one could steal the towers of the cathedral of Notre Dame. Louis Bà ©roud, a painter, decided to join in the debate by painting a young French girl fixing her hair in the reflection from the pane of glass in front of the Mona Lisa. On Tuesday, August 22, 1911, Bà ©roud walked into the Louvre and went to the Salon Carrà © where the Mona Lisa had been on display for five years. But on the wall where the Mona Lisa used to hang, in between Correggios Mystical Marriage and Titians Allegory of Alfonso dAvalos, sat only four iron pegs. Bà ©roud contacted the section head of the guards, who thought the painting must be at the photographers. A few hours later, Bà ©roud checked back with the section head. It was then discovered the Mona Lisa was not with the photographers. The section chief and other guards did a quick search of the museum—no Mona Lisa. Since museum director Homolle was on vacation, the curator of Egyptian antiquities was contacted. He, in turn, called the Paris police. About 60 investigators were sent over to the Louvre shortly after noon. They closed the museum and slowly let out the visitors. They then continued the search. It was finally determined that it was true—the Mona Lisa had been stolen. The Louvre was closed for an entire week to aid the investigation. When it was reopened, a line of people had come to solemnly stare at the empty space on the wall, where the Mona Lisa had once hung. An anonymous visitor left a bouquet of flowers. Museum director Homolle lost his job. Why Did No One Notice? Later reports would show that the painting was stolen for 26 hours before anyone noticed it.   In retrospect, thats not all that shocking. The Louvre Museum is the largest in the world, covering an area of about 15 acres. Security was weak; reports are that there were only about 150 guards, and incidents of art stolen or damaged inside the museum had happened a few years earlier. In addition, at the time, the Mona Lisa was not all that famous. Although known to be an early 16th-century work of Leonardo da Vinci, only a small but growing circle of art critics and aficionados were aware that it was special. The theft of the painting would change that forever.   The Clues Unfortunately, there wasnt much evidence to go on. The most important discovery was found on the first day of the investigation. About an hour after the 60 investigators began searching the Louvre, they found the controversial plate of glass and Mona Lisas frame lying in a staircase. The frame, an ancient one donated by Countess de Bà ©arn two years prior, had not been damaged. Investigators and others speculated that the thief grabbed the painting off the wall, entered the stairwell, removed the painting from its frame, then somehow left the museum unnoticed. But when did all this take place? Investigators began to interview guards and workers to determine when the Mona Lisa went missing. One worker remembered having seen the painting around 7 oclock on Monday morning (a day before it was discovered missing) but noticed it gone when he walked by the Salon Carrà © an hour later. He had assumed a museum official had moved it. Further research discovered that the usual guard in the Salon Carrà © was home (one of his children had the measles) and his replacement admitted leaving his post for a few minutes around 8 oclock to smoke a cigarette. All of this evidence pointed to the theft occurring somewhere between 7:00 and 8:30 on Monday morning. But on Mondays, the Louvre was closed for cleaning. So, was this an inside job? Approximately 800 people had access to the Salon Carrà © on Monday morning. Wandering throughout the museum were museum officials, guards, workmen, cleaners, and photographers. Interviews with these people brought out very little. One person thought they had seen a stranger hanging out, but he was unable to match the strangers face with photos at the police station. The investigators brought in Alphonse Bertillon, a famous fingerprint expert. He found a thumbprint on the Mona Lisas frame, but he was unable to match it with any in his files. There was a scaffold against one side of the museum that was there to aid the installation of an elevator. This could have given access to a would-be thief to the museum. Besides believing that the thief had to have at least some internal knowledge of the museum, there really wasnt much evidence. So, whodunnit? Who Stole the Painting? Rumors and theories about the identity and motive of the thief spread like wildfire. Some Frenchmen blamed the Germans, believing the theft a ploy to demoralize their country. Some Germans thought it was a ploy by the French to distract from international concerns. The prefect of the police had several theories, quoted in a 1912 story in The New York Times: The thieves—I am inclined to think there were more than one—got away with it all right. So far nothing is known of their identity and whereabouts. I am certain that the motive was not a political one, but maybe it is a case of sabotage, brought about by discontent among the Louvre employees. Possibly, on the other hand, the theft was committed by a maniac. A more serious possibility is that  La Gioconda  was stolen by someone who plans to make a monetary profit by blackmailing the Government. Other theories blamed a Louvre worker, who stole the painting in order to reveal how bad the Louvre was protecting these treasures. Still, others believed the whole thing was done as a joke and that the painting would be returned anonymously shortly. On September 7, 1911, 17 days after the theft, the French arrested the French poet and playwright Guillaume Apollinaire. Five days later, he was released. Though Apollinaire was a friend of Gà ©ry Pià ©ret, someone who had been stealing artifacts right under the guards noses for quite a while, there was no evidence that Apollinaire had any knowledge or had in any way participated in the theft of the  Mona Lisa. Though the public was restless and the investigators were searching, the  Mona Lisa  did not show up. Weeks went by. Months went by. Then years went by. The latest theory was that the painting had been accidentally destroyed during a cleaning and the museum was using the idea of a theft as a cover-up. Two years went by with no word about the real  Mona Lisa. And then the thief made contact. The Robber Makes Contact In the fall of 1913, two years after the  Mona Lisa  was stolen, a well-known antique dealer in Florence, Italy named Alfredo Geri innocently placed an ad in several Italian newspapers which stated that he was a buyer at good prices of art objects of every sort.   Soon after he placed the ad, Geri received a letter dated Nov. 29, 1913, that stated the writer was in possession of the stolen  Mona Lisa. The letter had a post office box in Paris as a return address and had been signed only as Leonardo. Though Geri thought he was dealing with someone who had a copy rather than the real  Mona Lisa, he contacted Commendatore Giovanni Poggi, museum director of Florences Uffizi museum. Together, they decided that Geri would write a letter in return saying that he would need to see the painting before he could offer a price. Another letter came almost immediately asking Geri to go to Paris to see the painting. Geri replied, stating that he could not go to Paris, but, instead, arranged for Leonardo to meet him in Milan on Dec. 22. On December 10, 1913, an Italian man with a mustache appeared at Geris sales office in Florence. After waiting for other customers to leave, the stranger told Geri that he was Leonardo Vincenzo and that he had the  Mona Lisa  back in his hotel room. Leonardo stated that he wanted a half million lire for the painting. Leonardo explained that he had stolen the painting in order to restore to Italy what had been stolen from it by Napoleon. Thus, Leonardo made the stipulation that the  Mona Lisa  was to be hung at the Uffizi and never given back to France. With some quick, clear thinking, Geri agreed to the price but said the director of the Uffizi would want to see the painting before agreeing to hang it in the museum. Leonardo then suggested they meet in his hotel room the next day. Upon his leaving, Geri contacted the police and the Uffizi. The Return of the Painting The following day, Geri and the Uffizi museum director Poggi appeared at Leonardos hotel room. Leonardo pulled out a wooden trunk, which contained a pair of underwear, some old shoes, and a shirt. Beneath that Leonardo removed a false bottom—and there lay the  Mona Lisa. Geri and the museum director noticed and recognized the Louvre seal on the back of the painting. This was obviously the real  Mona Lisa. The museum director said that he would need to compare the painting with other works by Leonardo da Vinci. They then walked out with the painting. The Caper Leonardo Vincenzo, whose real name was Vincenzo Peruggia, was arrested. Peruggia, born in Italy, had worked in Paris at the Louvre in 1908. He and two accomplices, the brothers Vincent and Michele Lancelotti, had entered the museum on Sunday and hid in a storeroom. The next day, while the museum was closed, the men dressed in workmans smocks came out of the storeroom, removed the protective glass and the frame. The Lancelotti brothers left by a staircase, dumping the frame and glass in the staircase, and, still known by many of the guards, Peruggia grabbed the  Mona Lisa—painted on a white polar panel measuring 38x21 inches—and simply walked out of the museums front door with the  Mona Lisa  under his painters smock. Peruggia hadnt had a plan to dispose of the painting; his only goal, so he said, was to return it to Italy: but he may well have done it for the money. The hue and cry over the loss made the painting far more famous than before, and it was now far too dangerous to try to sell too quickly. The public went wild at the news of finding the  Mona Lisa. The painting was displayed at the Uffizi and throughout Italy before it was returned to France on Dec. 30, 1913. After Effects The men were tried and found guilty in a tribunal in 1914. Peruggia received a one year sentence, which was later reduced to seven months and he went home to Italy: there was a war in the works and a resolved art theft was no longer newsworthy. The Mona Lisa became world-famous: her face is one of the most recognizable in the world today, printed on mugs, bags, and t-shirts around the globe. Sources and Further Reading McLeave, Hugh. Rogues in the Gallery: The Modern Plague of Art Thefts. Raleigh, NC: Boson Books, 2003.  McMullen, Roy. Mona Lisa: The Picture and the Myth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975.Nagesh, Ashitha. Mona Lisa is moving: What does it take to keep her safe? BBC News, 16 July 2019.  Scotti, R.A. The Lost Mona Lisa: The Extraordinary True Story of the Greatest Art Theft in History. New York: Bantam, 2009.  --- Vanished Smile: The Mysterious Theft of the Mona Lisa. New York: Random House, 2010.  The Theft That Made The Mona Lisa A Masterpiece. National Public Radio, July 30, 2011.  Three more held in Mona Lisa theft; French Police Seize Two Men and a Woman on Perugias Information. The New York Times, Dec. 22, 1913. 3.  Zug, James. Stolen: How the Mona Lisa Became the World’s Most Famous Painting. Smithsonian.com, June 15, 2011.