The Start-Up of You and Readers' Responses Essay

The Start-Up of You and Readers' Responses - Essay Example A closer look at Friedman’s arguments which applied the use of humor could be seen from his second paragraph when he was trying to explain that the number of personnel currently employed by famous global organizations, such as the social networking and Internet companies, could just fit in â€Å"the 20,000 seats in Madison Square Garden, and still have room for grandma† (Friedman, 2011, par. 2). The intention of the author was for the audience to visualize the significant change in the thrust of hiring, not based on quantities of human resources; but on distinct innovative and creative skills. Likewise, another statement that injected humor was: â€Å"I think something else, something new-something that will require our kids not so much to find their next job as to invent their next job-is also influencing today's job market more than people realize† (Friedman, 2011, par. 1). In this particular statement, the author’s main argument was to relay the imminen t pressure encountered by current graduates in searching for employment, based primarily on unconventional factors that allegedly exacerbate the situation of job seekers. It stirs the emotions of readers in terms of inciting increased awareness and developing a sense of urgency to re-evaluate personal and professional skills that one currently possesses, or that one should currently possess to increase competitiveness in the contemporary global market. Still, there was a tinge of humor when Friedman indicated that â€Å"you would never know that from listening to the debate in Washington, where some Democrats still tend to talk about job creation as if it's the 1960s and some Republicans as if it's the 1980s. But this is not your parents' job market† (Friedman, 2011, par. 6). The statement has some elements of satire in the way the author stressed that policymakers apparently were too outdated to know that they should likewise be kept abreast of the changing pace of workforce opportunities. At this, the audience could either agree or react otherwise, depending on the demographic profile assumed; meaning, parents could be offended; young graduates could think this is funny; members of either the Democrats or the Republicans could obviously feel grossly transgressed. Other portions that exemplify the author’s use of emotions to sustain his arguments are as follows: in introducing the book entitled The Start-Up of You, which was reportedly authored by Reid Garrett Hoffman, LinkedIn’s founder, the assertions of Hoffman likewise stirs the emotios of the readers in terms of apparently creating a sense of uneasiness, anxiety, and unrest in specifying that the thrust of contemporary global organizations’ hiring focuses on entrepreneurial skills and talents that could not be simply earned and develop through a college degree. It was emphasized that â€Å"You can't just say, 'I have a college degree, I have a right to a job, now someone else should figure out how to hire and train me!’" (Friedman, 2011, par. 10). This particular revelation could come as a big blow to thousands of college graduates who remain optimistic of finding their dream jobs through the theoretical framework gained from their respective fields of endeavors.  

Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza - Essay Example The Claimant Mr. Ghaidan who is also the appellant seek for an overturn of the Court of Appeal ruling in the Lordship’s House. The Court of Appeal ruled against Mr. Ghaidan who wanted to evict a tenant in his apartment claiming that the tenant-Mr. Godin-Mendoza did not have the right to inherit the property from the deceased spouse. The dead spouse and Mr. Godin-Mendoza had engaged in homosexual marriage1. Because in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27 the Lordship’s House did not recognise inheritance of property by a same sex partner Mr. Ghaidan thought that this was the best opportunity to evict Mr. Godin-Mendoza from his flat. Mr. Godin-Mendoza was in the Lordship’s House as a defendant in the appeal case brought about by Mr. Ghaidan who wanted to evict him from his flat after the death of his partner Mr. Wallwyn-James had died2. Mr. Godin-Mendoza was living with a protected tenant who also happened to be his marriage partner- Mr. Wa llwyn-James in basement flat at 17 Cresswell Gardens, London SW5. However, when his partner Mr. Wallwyn-James died as rightful spouse he thought that he was protected by Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977. This Act provides that a surviving spouse of the protected tenant if living in the same dwelling-house until the death of the partner will became an automatic legal tenant after the death of the protected partner. Mr. Godin-Mendoza was in the House of Lords to defend his right to occupy the dwelling house after the death of his spouse considering that the landlord wanted to evict him. Judges in the case of Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] A number of judges presided over the appeal case in the Lordship’s House and they include Lord Steyn, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Millett, and Baroness Hale of Richmond3. The House of Lords judges dismissed the appeal by Mr. Ghaidan and as such the claimant- Mr. Ghaidan lost his case whereb y he intended to expel Mr. Godin-Mendoza from the apartment. Difference between House of Lords decision and Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] The first imminent difference in the two cases involves the fact that one ruling recognised same-sex marriage while the other disputed same sex marriage with respect to succession of property from a deceased partner4. In Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd case the judges expressed that it is only surviving partners of the heterosexual marriages that have a right to legal tenancy by succession after the death of their spouse with who they have been sharing a dwelling house. However this provision is not recognised in homosexual marriages and as such they have to compete with other members of the family of the protected tenant for rightful tenancy by succession. House of Lords decision in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza recognised same sex marriages in relation to legal tenancy by succession. The House of Lords Judges sta ted that both the heterosexual and homosexual spouses have equal right in succeeding the dwelling house of the deceased spouse in which the couple have been living in together as husband and wife5. This is the main reason why the landlord Mr. Ghaidan failed his appeal which he tried to evict Mr. Godin-Mendoza because they were engaged in a same sex marriage. Material facts i) The fact that the defendant was a homosexual was a material fact. This is