I have an assignment which is a presentation and my responsibility the question number 5 which is:

Is there a first-mover advantage in pizza similar to fresh pasta?

I did one but not completely done I will attach it.

In the attachment the Harvard case and my work.

Choose one topic from below and write about it

Topics for Discussion 2:

• Describe the racial and social stratification of New Orleans in the late 1800s and early 1900s. What distinguished Creoles of Color as a unique social class? How did this, and the Plessy vs Ferguson ruling contribute to the emergence of jazz?

• Explain the difference between sweet and hot jazz, identifying at least two specific musical characteristics of each style. How were sweet and hot jazz coded in racial terms, and how did they impact the popularization of jazz during the Jazz Age?

• Explain how Duke Ellington’s approach to composing and arranging differ from that of Fletcher Henderson, and challenged prevailing ideas about big band jazz. Compare/contrast stylistic elements of both composers, identifying at least two specific musical characteristics of each composer’s style.

Business Admin Capstone – Discussion 1

“Strategic Competitiveness”

• From the first e-Activity, determine which of the two primary drivers of the competitive landscape is more influential. Explain your rationale.
  • E-Activity: Use the Internet to research an industry with a significant impact on your local economy (e.g., autos in Michigan or oil in Louisiana).
• Explain which model (I / O model or resource-based model) you believe will best help a firm in the industry you researched earn above-average returns.

****This is a discussion, NOT a paper. Need 2 strong paragraphs and references.****

Write a response to the essay “Should We Rename Institutions that Honor Dead Racists?” by Regina Rini (in your textbook, pages 23-25). Your goal is to argue whether or not Rini has presented valid arguments for her point of view. You do not have to indicate whether you agree or not with her point of view; you only have to indicate whether or not she presents her argument well. If you think she successfully argues her point, you may still offer some criticism if you think any arguments are weak. Likewise, if your overall impression is that she doesn’t present a valid argument, you can still point out whatever strengths you think her essay has. But your essay must clearly state whether your overall impression is positive or negative.
Your essay should be in MLA format (2.0 line spacing, 1″ margins, 12-point type) and should be about a page-and-a-half to two pages in length.
Here are the textbook pages:
Regina Rini
Should we rename institutions that honor dead racists?
We all know what Juliet says about a rose: by any other name, it would smell as sweet. But we probably don’t remember why she says this, or what happens next. Juliet is lamenting that a certain young man happens to be called ‘Romeo Montague’, a name associated with her family’s dire enemies. Romeo then emerges from the shadows and insists that the name is ‘hateful to myself, because it is an enemy to thee’. He declares his moniker dispensable, under one condition: ‘Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptised; henceforth I never will be Romeo.’
What altered scent might emanate from a renamed Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? The Princeton institution faces calls to drop its nominal affiliation with America’s 28th president, who was also governor of New Jersey, president of the university, and a horrible racist. Similarly, students at Yale have demanded a rebranding of Calhoun College, named after John Calhoun who championed ‘Indian removal’ and told the Senate that slavery was a ‘positive good’. And Georgetown University, my own alma mater, has agreed to strip the names of two Jesuit slave-sellers from campus buildings. Across the country, student Juliets are asking their administrator Romeos to be newly baptised.
And why not? It is reasonable to prefer not to live in a quadrangle named after a man who extolled the ‘positive good’ of your great-great-grandparents’ forced labour. It is reasonable to wish not to study in a place that honors a man who would have you keep to your own, segregated end of the lecture hall. For students of colour, living in a United States that preaches equality and practises something else, it is reasonable to expect an honest reckoning with our damaged patriarchs.
But the problem is consistency. Once we’ve started rescinding honours from besmirched heroes, where should we stop? On any reasonable scale of evil, the segregationist Wilson cannot be as bad as George Washington, who owned hundreds of slaves. So must we also rename several universities, a northwestern state, and the District of Columbia? The last, in fact, seems to require double renaming, as Christopher Columbus is now seen as a genocidal monster. Perhaps ‘America’ itself ought to go: Amerigo Vespucci wrapped up his first voyage to the New World by setting a native village on fire and ‘thereon made sail for Spain with 222 captive slaves’.
This, say opponents, is the absurdity to which we will be reduced. Where does the bonfire end? Surely we can’t consider renaming every legacy of a moral scofflaw. Who has the time?
But, in fact, we regularly give things new names. In 2005, a man in California petitioned to rename Mount Diablo, because federal rules prohibit naming a geographic formation after ‘a living person’ such as Satan. The man’s preferred alternative, ‘Mount Reagan’, was unsuccessful, but this has not stopped the Mount Reagan Project from questing after another peak to rechristen. Ronald Reagan’s name, incidentally, already adorns National Airport in Virginia – which was previously named for none other than the sacrosanct Washington. It would be worrisome if this reductio of name-changing was deemed absurd only when racism is the issue. Still, it is worth pausing to consider just what it takes to give something a name.
The British philosopher J L Austin gave naming as a prime example of a ‘performative utterance’, the kind of speech act whereby merely saying something makes it so. But not all attempted naming is felicitous. In How to Do Things with Words (1962), Austin offered the following delightful demonstration:
Suppose, for example, I see a vessel on the stocks, walk up and smash the bottle hung at the stern, proclaim: ‘I name this ship the Mr Stalin’ and for good measure kick away the chocks: but the trouble is, I was not the person chosen to name it… We can all agree (1) that the ship was not thereby named; (2) that it is an infernal shame.
Austin’s point was that the giving of a name requires a certain social authority. But unlike the Royal Navy, in schools and cities the authority to name does not entirely belong to a single person. Students (and faculty, staff and alumni) have an interest in not seeing their college linguistically cavort with blackguards. The citizens of a democratic state have a right to call themselves as they wish. And the procedure by which we determine how to (re)name our collective institutions has its own name – it is called debate. Why not have this debate, openly and honestly, rather than dismiss the entire project?
The US philosopher Saul Kripke is known for his causal theory of reference. According to Kripke, proper names pick out their objects via a causal chain going back to the object’s ‘baptism’. Once upon a time, someone (probably his parents) pointed at Romeo and said: ‘That one will be called Romeo,’ and this caused other people to call the child Romeo, onward until the night under Juliet’s balcony. But there is nothing in this story to prevent a re-baptism, or a displacement of the old name by the same causal channels. Suppose the young lovers decide that the man formerly known as Romeo Montague is now Keyser Söze. If they can cause enough fair Veronese to refer to him thus, then so shall he be (though this is unlikely to solve Keyser’s trouble with his in-laws).
We are links in a causal chain of reference, stretching back to institutional baptisms in 1931 and 1948, when university administrators pointed to a college and called it Calhoun, or pointed to a school and called it Wilson. These were performative utterances, issued with full authority, and part of their aim was to honour the legacies of dead racists. We do not have to be unthinking links in the chain. We, collectively, have the authority to pass on these names, or to replace them. Whatever we do – continue the chain or disrupt it – we are making a choice about whether to uphold the honour intended by those baptisms.
In fact, the students at Princeton are not asking us to make a comprehensive judgment: Wilson, good man or bad? The idea is to ask: does continuing to apply the name of such a person express our values, rather than the values of a gone generation? We are not deciding the fate of Wilson’s eternal soul. We are asking whether we, who are the only ones with the authority to keep or change the name, have good reason to pass the name on to the next generation.
We know that renaming tends to follow political revolution. Famously, Byzantium turned to Constantinople, which turned to Istanbul. Saint Petersburg was Leningrad was Petrograd was Saint Petersburg. Decolonisation brought a mass shedding of imposed titles, from Mumbai (Bombay) to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) to Jakarta (Batavia). We are ready to accept that names change with the times and with the politics. Or would you insist that I am writing in New Amsterdam?
So if renaming can follow political revolution, then why not moral revolution? Why are we not free to ask ourselves whether to uphold the values that led our ancestors to name in honour of slaveholders and segregationists?
Perhaps we will decide, together, that on balance the good done by Washington or Wilson outweighs the evil. Perhaps. But I think we should seriously listen to those whose histories are most in the weighing. It can be hard, for some whose ancestors were not enslaved or segregated, to fully appreciate the pain caused by honouring these names. Yet even if you cannot understand it yourself, you can see it in others. And perhaps this will move you to agree, as an act of civic love, to accede to their requests. Like Romeo, listening in the night, we might find our collective name hateful to ourselves, ‘because it is an enemy to thee’.

Assignment RUBRIC (scoring guide):

Pick one primary source about the ’68 Riots in DC to write a dialectical journal (explained below). You can use any available image from those on this course page (see course “Files” on the left) or any available text source on the course page. Feel free to expand on the image and text that we looked at on the first day. If you explore the course materials on Canvas you may find material that you’d like to use instead. Just be sure it is a primary source (an original source). An explanation of a dialectical Journal is below. Also be sure to look at the rubric for the assignment (above).

Dialectical Journals

The term “Dialectic” means “the art or practice of arriving at the truth by using conversation involving question and answer.” Think of your dialectical journal as a series of conversations with the source (image or text) observed during this course. The process is meant to help you develop a better understanding of the sources themselves. Use your journal to incorporate your personal responses to the text or image, your ideas about the themes in the course and our class discussions. You will find that it is a useful way to process what you’re reading, prepare yourself for group discussion, and gather textual or visual evidence for your analysis.

Procedure:

• As you read, choose passages that stand out to you and record them in the left-hand column of a T-chart (ALWAYS include page numbers). If the source is an image, choose people, places, things that stand out and record them in the left-hand column (include the citation).
• In the right column, write your response to the text/image (ideas/insights, questions, reflections, and comments on each passage).
• If you choose, you can label your responses using the following codes:
  • (Q) Question – ask about something in the passage that is unclear
  • (C) Connect – make a connection to your life, the world, or another text
  • (P) Predict – anticipate what will occur based on what’s in the passage
  • (CL) Clarify – answer earlier questions or confirm/disaffirm a prediction
  • (R) Reflect – think deeply about what the passage means in a broad sense – not just to the characters in the story. What conclusions can you draw about the world, about human nature, or just the way things work?
  • (E) Evaluate – make a judgment about the character(s), their actions, or what the author is trying to say

Sample Dialectical Journal entry: List of Deaths Positively Established In Connection With the Civil Disturbances in Washington, D.C. April 5-7, 1968

Passages from the text

Comments & Questions

“He states, he had an adult held at bay by gun point and at this time the decedent, Thomas Williams, raced past in front of him, striking his out-stretched hand, which was holding his service revolver. The pistol discharged striking the decedent.” (List of Deaths, entry 1)

(R) I struggle with this explanation. The reason I struggle is that, much like more recent police shootings of unarmed youth, there is a possibility that it happened exactly in this way. On the other hand, there is an equal possibility that the explanation is fabricated. Video has completely changed police accountability. We will never have video of the shooting of Thomas Williams. With that said, video may not have brought more clarity to Williams’ death. A riot is a chaotic event. The officer responsible for the shooting was simply doing his job; at least he didn’t shoot Williams in the back. I also want to know more about Williams. Was he a good kid or did he have a police record. But I don’t want to know this to show that he deserved to die or anything like that. I want to know because I am curious what kind of fourteen year old would want to be in the thick of a riot with fires and guns and looting and chaos reigning all around. It is sad that a fourteen year old would be impacted by the feelings of desperation of being black in 1968 (or today) in the US, the helplessness that forced all ages to go out and burn down their own neighborhoods in an act of civil disobedience that brought attention to their plight.

Choosing Passages from the Text:

Look for quotes that seem significant, powerful, thought provoking or puzzling. For example, you might record:

• Effective &/or creative use of stylistic or literary devices
• Passages that remind you of your own life or something you’ve seen before
• Structural shifts or turns in the plot
• A passage that makes you realize something you hadn’t seen before
• Examples of patterns: recurring images, ideas, colors, symbols or motifs.
• Passages with confusing language or unfamiliar vocabulary
• Events you find surprising or confusing
• Passages that illustrate a particular character or setting

Responding To the Text:

You can respond to the text in a variety of ways. The most important thing to remember is that your observations should be specific and detailed. You can write as much as you want for each entry. You must type your journals.

Basic Responses

• Raise questions about the beliefs and values implied in the text
• Give your personal reactions to the passage
• Discuss the words, ideas, or actions of the author or character(s)
• Tell what it reminds you of from your own experiences
• Write about what it makes you think or feel
• Agree or disagree with a character or the author

Sample Sentence Starters: I really don’t understand this because… I really dislike/like this idea because… I think the author is trying to say that… This passage reminds me of a time in my life when… If I were (name of character) at this point I would… This part doesn’t make sense because… This character reminds me of (name of person) because…

Higher Level Responses

• Analyze the text for use of literary devices (tone, structure, style, imagery)
• Make connections between different characters or events in the text
• Make connections to a different text (or film, song, etc…)
• Discuss the words, ideas, or actions of the author or character(s)
• Consider an event or description from the perspective of a different character
• Analyze a passage and its relationship to the story as a whole