Chicago and the Ring of Steel

Chicago and the Ring of Steel The issues of security always bother people during a long period of time. Each nation wants to live in a safe city and be sure that some kind of control will always be present to improve their lives. A ring of steel is one of the most popular terms, which mean the security or surveillance system in order to find out threats and be able to prevent them. New York and London have already established this security system, and now, it is Chicago’s turn to follow their steps. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Chicago and the Ring of Steel specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Chicago is one of the largest cities in the United States of America with more that 2.5 million of people living there, one of the brightest Global Financial Centers, and a huge metropolitan area, known to the whole world, this is why the improvement of the security system of this city is considered to be a really burning issue nowadays, and Chicago should certainly consider London and New York’s rings of steel in order to create the same surveillance cordon and provide its citizens with safer present and future. The City of London offered the creation of the ring of steel at the beginning of the 1990s, as a result of Irish terroristic attacks on London (Forest, 82). The second city, who agreed for such kind of security systems, was New York. Such a fast spreading of this security system promotes many other cities to make use of the ring of steel and protect the nations against possible terroristic attacks. The main goal of this study is to prove that Chicago has to have the ring of steel and has to consider immediately other two cities’ rings of steel. The benefits of the surveillance system under consideration are rather obvious: (1) with the help of this system, the worker can prove that he/she gets injuries not because of his/her fault and deserves to use his insurance, and the government can take certain me asure to eliminate the danger for the next time; (2) theft is inherent to any country, and the ring of steel provides people with a chance to follow possible thieves and prevent their activities; Advertising Looking for essay on homeland security? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More (3) this system allows to follow the work of employees and create the measure to improve the productivity. Chicago is a city of business, this is why any of the above-mentioned issues will positively influence the growth of the city. Project management structure of Chicago’ ring of steel is significant for its success: project board should be responsible for making any kind of consensus; government cooperating agency should care for governmental participation in the project; implementing partner should create the conditions to evaluate interventions and possible outputs; project assurance, management, and support will be responsible for each member of the project and provide the necessary help to develop the project on a proper level. The implementation program should be started with evaluation of surrounding environment: whether the roads should be reconstructed to provide proper transportation; which districts require a thorough observation; whether the places for establishing the cameras are safe enough and cannot be damaged from the outside (rain, birds, wind, etc). Then, financial costs should be analyzed, and the ability to pay for the services should be approved. Only in this case, the success of the program is possible. Chicago is rather a rich city, and the sphere of business is developing with unbelievable speed there, this is why the more security systems will be able to protect people’s actions and their business, the more chances the Americans, the citizens of Chicago, get to take leading positions in business and live safe and sound life. Forest, James, J. F. Homeland Security: Public Spa ces and Social Institutions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., 2006

Definition and Examples of Symbolic Action

Definition and Examples of Symbolic Action A term used by 20th-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke to refer in general to systems of communication that rely on symbols. Symbolic Action According to Burke In Permanence and Change (1935), Burke distinguishes human language as symbolic action from the linguistic behaviors of nonhuman species. In Language as Symbolic Action (1966), Burke states that all language is inherently persuasive because symbolic acts do something as well as say something. Books such as Permanence and Change (1935) and Attitudes Toward History (1937) explore symbolic action in such areas as magic, ritual, history, and religion, while A Grammar of Motives (1945) and A Rhetoric of Motives work out what Burke calls the dramatistic basis of all symbolic action. (Charles L. ONeill, Kenneth Burke. Encyclopedia of the Essay, ed. by Tracy Chevalier. Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997) Language and Symbolic Action Language is a species of action, symbolic actionand its nature is such that it can be used as a tool. . . .I define literature as a form of symbolic action, undertaken for its own sake.(Kenneth Burke, Language as Symbolic Action. Univ. of California Press, 1966)To comprehend symbolic action, [Kenneth] Burke dialectically compares it with practical action. The chopping down of a tree is a practical act whereas the writing about the chopping of a tree is a symbolic art. The internal reaction to a situation is an attitude, and the externalization of that attitude is a symbolic action. Symbols can be used for practical purposes or for sheer joy. For instance, we may use symbols to earn a living or because we like to exercise our ability to use them. However philosophically distinct the two are, they often overlap.(Robert L. Heath, Realism and Relativism: A Perspective on Kenneth Burke. Mercer Univ. Press, 1986)The lack of a clear definition of symbolic action in The Philosophy of Literar y Form [Kenneth Burke, 1941] is not the weakness some might imagine it to be, for the idea of symbolic action is just a beginning point. Burke is simply distinguishing between broad classes of human experience, with the intention of confining his discussion to the dimensions of action in language. Burke is more interested in how we craft language into a strategic or stylized answer (that is, in how symbolic action works) than in defining symbolic action in the first place. (Ross Wolin, The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke. Univ. of South Carolina Press, 2001) Multiple Meanings The conclusion to be drawn from setting various definitions of symbolic action side by side is that [Kenneth] Burke does not mean the same thing every time he uses the term. . . . An examination of the many uses of the term reveals that it has three separate but interrelated meanings . . .: linguistic, representative, and purgative-redemptive. The first includes all verbal action; the second covers all acts which are representative images of the essential self; and the third includes all acts with a purgative-redemptive function. Clearly, symbolic action includes much more than poetry; and clearly, almost anything from the full range of human action could be a symbolic act in one or more of the senses given above. . . .Burkes almost dogmatic assertion that all poetic acts are always symbolic acts in all three meanings is one of the unique features of his system. His argument is that though any act may be symbolic in one or more ways, all poems are always representative, purgative-redemptive acts. This means that every poem is the true image of the self which created it, and that every poem performs a purgative-redemptive function for the self. (William H. Ruec kert, Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations, 2nd ed. Univ. of California Press, 1982)