Dickens’ Victorian Critique of Church and State Essay Example for Free

Dickens’ Victorian Critique of Church and State Essay There is not much question in a look at his career’s work, that Charles Dickens was by his nature a harsh social critic. He would often make his characters morally objectionable in order to demonstrate the ills of society and would take an especially great interest in showing the iniquities of Church and State. In the deeply unequal England of the Victorian era, Dickens felt that he saw a lot of suffering, a great many people in need and a visible disgust of the rich toward the poor. The fact that these conditions had associated so closely with the premise of God and Crown had drawn out in critics such as Dickens as sharp distaste for the British institution girding both. That is why so many of his works centered on the relationship of the rich and poor, separated as such by the unwelcome permeation of authority of the former over the latter. The labor conditions Dickens explores in Hard Times through such figures as Stephen are contrasted sharply by the life of decadence and sanctimony denoting the figure of Josiah Bounderby. Clearly the figure through who Dickens channels the greatest pitch of protest, there is a clear hostility toward the hypocrisy and meanness which allows Bounderby to prevail over the poor of Coketown with a divinely entitled and self-declared superiority. It is here that Dickens captures the Victorian era’s undercurrent of resentment of the exploitation of God and Church for the interests of rendering selective such universal entitlements as faith and justice. In Bounderby, we are given the opportunity to view the justice system in Dickens’ time as something principally founded on inequality, determining a process which is governed by an aristocratic jurisdiction over that which deemed righteous, just and moral. All of these concepts emerge in Bounderby, and especially in a notable encounter with Stephen, suggest the most demonstrably inappropriate misuse of religious principles. In Hard Times, published in 1854, Dickens shows that he is specifically interested in dealing with a current problem of labor abuse. He draws a deeply negative picture of the rationalist political movement with which Bounderby may be identified. This was a powerful movement at the time in England. Rationality was focused on facts, which Dickens believed were used to give strict control over education, values and even creativity. This would impact the making of religion and justice too. The chief characterization of Bounderby captures this points exceedingly well, remarking that â€Å"there was a moral infection of claptrap in him. Strangers, modest enough elsewhere, started up at dinners in Coketown, and boasted in quite a rampant way, of Bounderby. They made him out to be the Royal arms, the Union-Jack, Magna Charta, John Bull, Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights, an Englishman’s house is his castle, Church and State, and God Save the Queen, all put together. † (52) The declaration, clearly satirical in its delivery, is nonetheless a premise upon which we will find Bounderby behaving in the most repugnant of ways. When the aforementioned Stephen, an honest laborer detained in a marriage with an abusive and alcoholic wife, goes to Bounderby, the wealthy mill owner and a public judge, he is denied a request for divorce. Bounderby denies him because poor laborers like him are not expected to have the money to have a divorce. In the scene between Stephen and Bounderby, we can see how the justice system is deeply imbalanced, as are the attitudes of the people in the justice system. When Stephen argues that the legal system wouldn’t let him get a divorce was a ‘muddle,’ Bounderby disciplines him, â€Å"Don’t you talk nonsense, my good fellow,. . . about things you don’t understand; and don’t you call the Institutions of your country a muddle , or you’ll get yourself into a real muddle one of these find mornings. The institutional of your country are not your piece-work, and the only thing you have got to do, is, to mind your piece-work. You didn’t take your wife for fast and for loose; but for better for worse. If she has turned out worse—why, all we have got to say is, she might have turned out better† (Hard Times, 84) The response, which only makes Stephen more angry, shows how Dickens’ really likes to use the writing device of irony. As Bounderby and Mrs. Sparsit, who is a rich, high-class woman with a divorce, together call Stephen guilty of ‘impiety,’ we know that the two are having some sort of inappropriate relationship with one another. This casts a blaring spotlight on the hypocrisy at the root of his cruel religiosity. Bounderby takes on the mantle of Dickens’ twinned reproach for the system and church which had conspired to make England so deeply unequal a place. That God had come to overwhelm the senses of justice and humanism seems a clear justification to Dickens that the core morality of religion had by the Victorian age been exposed for the bastard-child of human conceit which it had come to embody. Indeed, in the above claim by Bounderby against Stephen, was can see that Dickens is be very sarcastic when he uses the word ‘impiety. ’ Particularly, the statement is delivered at the expense of a poor man, demonstrating a perceived relationship between righteousness and social class. The cruel and empowered judge would characterize himself as the man of God, so noted for his chosen rank and certainly not, from the reader’s (or Dickens’) perspective, because of his admirable moral disposition.. The outcome of Stephen’s visit to Bounderby and Sparsit is that his poor, labor-class status renders him morally, and thus legally, forbidden from divorce. A clear symptom of the Victorian era, we can see Dickens taking particular pains demonstrate that manner in which religion and justice had come to falsely associate. The vitriol which Bounderby aims at Stephen is powerfully representative of the purpose in this association, allowing the wealthy to prevail over fundamental personal institutions such as the faith, family and welfare of the poor. Works Cited Dickens, C. (1870). Hard Times. Barnes Noble Classics.

The Lure of Evil in Shakespeares Macbeth Essay -- Literary Analysis

Everyone knows that evil can be devastating, especially to someone who foolishly embraces it. Most people would wonder why anyone would embrace evil. The answer is simple though; sometimes, evil does not appear as what it really is. Often, it actually appears enchanting, showing you the alluring side while hiding the darker side. The Tragedy of Macbeth, by William Shakespeare (1564-1616), is an ideal example of people falling victim to evil. In fact, the entire downfall of the main characters, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, is due to them being lured to evil by three witches. The play is a perfect illustration of how evil can lure someone in then lead to their downfall. In the play, Macbeth started out as an extremely brave and loyal solider. However, after the three witches told him he was to be king one day, he changed completely, being wholly consumed by his greed. He turned his back on his friends, betrayed them, and murdered innocent people. All of this can be linked back to the predictions made by the witches. The witches first come to Macbeth after a battle and call him thane of Glamis (which he already is), thane of Cawdor, and King (Macbeth 1.3. 48-50). Shortly after this, while Macbeth is still trying to understand what they were talking about, he is informed that he is now thane of Cawdor, just as the witches said. This is the beginning of his downward spiral into evil. The more Macbeth thinks about the witches calling him king, the more the idea interests him. Soon, all he can think about is becoming king. He is so tempted by their prophecy that he determines he must murder the king. Since the king is staying with him this is easily done. Lady Macbeth, eager to become queen, comes up with a plan to kill King Dun... ...973-1988. Boston: G. K. Hall & Company, 1990. Plath, Sylvia. The Collected Poems. Ed. Ted Hughes. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Plath, Sylvia. The Journals of Sylvia Plath. Ed. Ted Hughes and Frances McCullough. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982. Pollitt, Katha. "A Note of Triumph [The Collected Poems]". Critical Essays on Sylvia Plath. Ed. Linda W. Wagner. Boston: G. K. Hall & Company, 1984. 67 - 72. Rosenthal, Lucy. Modern American Literature: A Library of Literary Criticism. Ed. Elaine Fialka Kramer, Maurice Kramer, and Dorothy Nyren. Rev. ed. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1976. Wagner, Linda W., ed. Critical Essays on Sylvia Plath. Boston: G. K. Hall & Company, 1984. Wagner-Martin, Linda. The Oxford Companion to Women's Writing in the United States. Ed. Cathy N. Davidson and Linda Wagner-Martin. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Divorce and Its Impact on the Family

Introduction A significant and often heated debate has been in progress for years regarding the effect of divorce on the family, and more specifically, on children of different ages. On the one side, there are writers, theorists and scholars who argue that divorce does not affect the children over the long term and on the other side are those who argue that divorce has a negative effect on the children for all their lives. It is indeed impossible to make a clear and definitive conclusion based on the research studies that have been conducted over the years. Each investigator argues strongly for their own conclusions, providing statistical evidence to support those conclusions. Does divorce have a negative impact on children, regardless of age when the divorce occurs? Does divorce have more impact on specific age ranges of children? If divorce has a negative impact on children, then, how long does that impact last? Do adult children of divorced parents find it easier to blame all their failures and pitfalls on their parents' divorce instead of taking responsibility for their own actions through the years? These are the only some of the questions that underlie the problem: What impact does divorce have on the children. Very few definitions are needed regarding this investigation: †¢Children means the children of the parents who get divorced, regardless of age. Thus, â€Å"children† refers to adolescents as well as younger children. When a specific age range is meant, that will be clarified in the text. †¢Divorce means that the couple has gone through the legal process of divorce and are, thus, no longer legally married. †¢Absent father refers to those fathers who do not keep in contact with their children subsequent to a divorce. Also, the absent father does not contribute to the children's support. †¢Custodial parent refers to the parent who has legal primary custody of the children. First a brief overview of what marriage and divorce was throughout history, and what would happen to those children after the divorce was finalized Marriage and Divorce in History The roots of marriage can be traced back to time of the Romans and Greeks. For the Greeks and Romans marriage wasn’t really something of a choice. It was more of a family obligation and a way to help the family gain higher status. Marriage in Roman times was often not at all romantic. Rather, it was an agreement between families. Men would usually marry in their mid-twenties, while women married while they were still in their early teens. As they reached these ages, their parents would consult with friends to find suitable partners that could improve the family’s wealth or class. †(PBS) Women really didn’t have a choice in who they married, they were chosen by their fathers. And even for the men, love wasn’t taken into account because it was up to the parents who they married. The actual marriage in Roman times was very simple. The couple would just have to declare their desire to live with each other in front of both families. Divorce in this time was just as easy as marriage. â€Å"Just as marriage was only a declaration of intent to live together, divorce was just a declaration of a couple’s intent not to live together. All that the law required was that they declare their wish to divorce before seven witnesses. † (PBS) Divorce was a very common thing for the Romans. The only condition was the woman would get her dowry back, and she would move back in with her father. If the wife was divorced because of adultery only half of her dowry was given back. The laws did not mention anything about husbands as they could not be divorced because of an adulterous they have committed. It is assumed that children were left with the father as men were the law in Roman times. Not much is known on what happened to the children after a divorce, whether they are allowed to see their mother or not, if the mothers were allowed to keep the children, or if the child’s best interests were ever a factor for who got to keep them after the divorce. Marriage in African countries was relatively similar to the Greeks and Romans, but with a few changes. Marriage signified a union between two families. â€Å"The death of a husband did not terminate the union of families. Upon a husband’s death a relative would assume his role. † (Simon and Altstein) Marriage was more of a binding contract than anything else. The woman being married didn’t really matter in the long run either as if she died or was unable to bare children, a younger sister would take over her role as the wife â€Å"But the wife wasn’t fully excepted until she gave birth to her first child. (Simon and Altstein) The actual marriage didn’t really require that much, just consent from both parties and their guardians, as well as some form of payment from the husband’s family to the wife’s. This would most likely be cattle. There wasn’t really any ceremony like today; it was more of a series of rituals. Divorce was a simple thing for Africans. Grounds for divorce were; adultery, desertion, insanity for at least seven years, and being imprisoned for more than five years. The children would normally have been given to the father, but in more recent times the child would go with whichever parent was more able to take care of them. If a child was old enough to make up their own mind the court would consider who they wished to live with, but that didn’t always mean the child’s pick would be the one he/she would be given to. In the 1500’s after the Reformation, a change in how marriages and divorces were performed occurred. The peasants were allowed to marry whomever they choose, but the nobles still kept with the arranged marriages to keep their line pure and to improve their power, this would go for royalty as well. Marriage then became a public affair, and it was considered part of the earthly kingdom instead of the heavenly kingdom. This meant that vows would be made in public before the church consummated the marriage. Prior to this the Church was in charge of marriage and divorce but they lost that power with the coming of the Reformation. â€Å"Marital disputes would be tried before a civil court, not a Church court. The Church did not have legal authority over marriage. †(Simon and Altstein) Also laws that prohibited the marriage of clerics, monks, and nuns were also rejected. Divorces were allowed as long as there was just cause. Cause included impotence, sexual incompatibility, abuse and acts of incest. † (Simon and Altstein) The average length of a marriage was only fifteen years at the time, but this was caused more by death, than by divorce. In more recent times a decision was made by the courts of the United Kingdom that they will not longer decide which parent the child should custody of. The parents were to make the decision together and stick with it, only if they can not agree will the court make one, this decision can not be argued. In the United States of America, arriage is â€Å"the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. † (Simon and Altstein) Only men and women are allowed to be married to each other, in some states though same-sex civil unions are allowed. The church is where the marriage is held but the state must approve the marriage for it to be final. The laws of marriage vary from state to state. In the United States of America divorce rates are very close or over fifty percent. Divorce varies on the state as well but some form is permitted by every state. Thirty-four states have adopted no-fault divorce in addition to traditional grounds for divorce. † (Simon and Altstein) As for the children, their wishes are considered by all but four states. The effects in which those children concur will be explained later. Literature Review The literature regarding the impact of di vorce on children is voluminous. It is also highly contradictory and heated in terms of debate. Anyone investigating this topic can find research studies to support their own opinions no matter what that opinion is. We begin by offering some data regarding divorce. In the United States, one out of every two marriages will end in divorce (Marano, 2000). Despite this devastating statistic, 90 percent of Americans will marry (Marano, 2000). Of those individuals who divorce their first spouse, 75 percent will remarry, even though their first marriage ended (Marano, 2000). Given that so many divorced individuals simply live with other persons or combine the homes with others without the sanction of legal marriage, the figure for â€Å"remarriages† escalates significantly when these people are included (Marano, 2000). Out of all second marriages, 60 percent end in divorce (Marano, 2000). It is not just in the U. S. that a large proportion of marriages fail. The BBC reported that one in seven marriages (16. 4 percent) end in divorce in the United Kingdom (2000). The divorce rate differs dramatically by location in the UK, for example, in Biggleswade, only 6 percent of marriages end in divorce but in Skelmersdale in Lancashire, 32. 4 percent of marriages end in divorce (BBC, 2000). The divorce rates have risen in most European countries, as well (Bjornberg, nd). The highest rates are found in Denmark, Sweden, Estonia and the United Kingdom (Bjornberg, nd). In the year 2000, there were 45,500 divorces, a new high (Victorian State Conference of Teams, 2001). Anyone who has kept up with public mass media also knows that the divorce rate in China has escalated to as much as 25 percent in recent years. It has become such an issue that the government began debating about a new law that would make adultery a crime and that would put further restrictions on divorce in that country. Most of the research regarding the impact of divorce on children has been conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. Two of the primary and most discussed studies contradict each other, which has come to be known as the â€Å"Hetherington-Wallerstein debate–a battle of superstars† (Corliss, 2002, p. 40). Hetherington argues that â€Å"75% to 80% of children of divorce function well, with little long-term harm to their adult lives† and Wallerstein argues that â€Å"the damaging effects of divorce on children are cumulative, and the major impact comes in adulthood† (Corliss, 2002, p. 0). Wallerstein first published her findings in a book in 1971; this was then updated in another book entitled The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study in 2000 (Corliss, 2002). In the most recent book, Wallerstein concluded that divorce leads to depression, juvenile delinquency, poor grades, among other things and that the divorce affects people wel l into adulthood (Corliss, 2002). Hetherington published her findings in a co-authored book (with John Kelly) entitled For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (Corliss, 2002). In this book, Hetherington and Kelly argue â€Å"that 75% to 80% of children of divorce are functioning well, with little long-term damage† (Corliss, 2002, p. 40). Hetherington and Kelly tracked nearly 1,400 families and more than 2,500 children, some for three decades and concluded: Within two years of their parents' divorce, the vast majority of children are beginning to function reasonably well again (Corliss, 2002, p. 40). 70 percent of divorced parents are living happier lives than they did before divorce (Corliss, 2002, p. 0). Some women and girls turned out to be more competent, able people than if they had stayed in unhappy family situations (Corliss, 2002, p. 40). In Hetherington's study, 25 percent of the children from divorced families had serious emotional, psychological or social problems (Corliss, 2002). This compares to 10 percent of children from families that remain intact (Corliss, 2002). Still, it is a much smaller proportion than many other studies, includi ng Wallerstein's. Cudina and Obradovic summarized a great deal of the research, most of which concludes that children from divorced families are â€Å"more aggressive and depressive†; â€Å"more prone to anxiety†; and â€Å"of a generally poorer adjustment than children living in intact families† (2001, p. 247). The instability of the marriage also affects boys and girls differently, for instance, â€Å"boys are more often found to be more vulnerable† and â€Å"more aggressive and displayed more behavioural problems than girls† (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001, p. 247). It should be pointed out, however, that the gender differences found have not been consistent. Another finding is that the reaction of children seem to differ according to age when the divorce occurs (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). For instance, the research suggests that â€Å"emotional response being more intense for children younger than 6, and for those in early adolescence at the time of parental divorce† (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001, p. 247). There is also a substantial amount of research that concludes that â€Å"prolonged parental marital distress could be even more damaging to the child's emotional and social development than parental divorce† (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001, p. 47). Fighting, conflict, violence all combine to make the child feel insecure and unstable as well as fearful (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). Mitigating factors that affect the impact of divorce on children have been identified as the availability of the noncustodial parent, the relationship between the parents after the divorce, the quality of the parent-child relationships with both par ents, and the degree of economic hardship and stress the child experiences after the divorce (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). Because the overwhelming majority of research has been conduced in English-speaking countries, Cudina and Obradovic studied the impact of divorce on children in Croatia, a society that is very different in many ways from the United States and other English-speaking nations (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). Croatia is smaller, has a relatively low GNP and in most ways can be considered a developing nation (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). The divorce rate in Croatia has increased over the last 30 years, rising from 13. 5 percent in 1962 to 17. percent in 1996 (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). The Croatian family reflects a myriad of both traditional and modern values (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). Nonetheless, there is still a stigma attached to divorced individuals in Croatia (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). Cudina and Obradovic found that Croatian children respond in much the same way as children in other countries – children of divorced parents are more emotionally unstable and more depress ive than children from intact families (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). The study did not support the premise that children suffer equally negative effects from living in a home where the parents are in conflict as do the children from divorced parents (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). They study also confirmed that the degree of impact is related to age – younger children showed more emotional distress than did older children (Cudina and Obradovic, 2001). Hyatt reported that the adjustment of the children is primarily dependent on the parents and how they behave after the divorce (1999). Hyatt was reporting a study conducted at Iowa State University and reported in the Journal of Marriage and the Family. Simons, who led the research investigation team, said that â€Å"Even though divorce more than doubles the risk for emotional and behavioral problems in both boys and girls, the good news is that the vast majority of children from divorced families do just fine. . . . What is essential for kids is that they be parented well. If mom and dad continue to persevere in their parenting, are warm and supportive, monitor the kids and are consistent in discipline, the risk for conduct problems is no greater than in two-parent families. This is a more optimistic scenario than is often assert† (Hyatt, 1999). This was also a longitudinal study that involves 600 families and is ongoing (Hyatt, 1999). Theoretical Foundations Attachment theory would seem to be the most appropriate theory to discuss in terms of the effects of divorce on children. Beginning in infancy, the child develops an attachment to the parent through interactions with the parent. According to Bowlby, an interruption or disruption of the attachment relationship can result in psychopathology (Garelli, 1997). Research indicates that the formation of attachments in infancy and childhood contribute to healthy adulthood (Galston, 1996; Fields, 1996). Research also indicates that when the attachment is disrupted, the child may well suffer both emotional and physical traumas affecting their ability to function today and in their future life (Galston, 1996; Fields, 1996). Divorce is an event that disrupts attachments. Attachment theory asserts that children do develop attachment feelings to people, places and objects. Research concludes that attachments are essential for good mental health. One study in Israel concluded that â€Å"Attachment between parent and child plays a crucial role in the healthy development of the child. Accordingly disturbances in parental bonding will be linked with the development of mental disorders later in life† (Canetti et al, 1997, p. 381). Note that the need for attachment is for all children. Divorce does not necessarily mean that the child's attachment to the noncustodial parent would be eliminated by the divorce. Discussion, Summary and Conclusions As can be seen from the few research studies presented, there is a heated debate and strong controversy regarding the effects of divorce on the family. There is equally strong evidence to support either side of the debate. That leaves the reader with a strong question as to how much divorce actually does affect the future development and adult life of the divorced family. There is no perfect study, which means that every study has its limitations. More studies suggest that children face significant effects when their parents divorce. It does seem, however, that the impact of a divorce on a child would be dependent upon the circumstances and the subsequent behaviors of the parents involved. More studies in recent years are pointing to this premise. If the parents both continue parenting and they parent well, a far smaller proportion of children will experience significant negative effects than what has been said in the past. If the parents continue their fighting and place the child in the middle of that fighting, then, common sense would tell us that the child will have any number of psychological and emotional problems as a result. It is important to note the studies that have compared children of divorced parents to children of parents who stayed married but whose relationship was so unstable. Certainly, living with verbal conflict and loud fighting between the parents has a devastating effect on the child. Living with parents where spousal abuse is prevalent would have tragic effects on the child, worse effects than would a divorce. Even the researchers who conclude that a small percentage of children experience serious problems after a divorce, clearly state that they are no promoting divorce and that children will develop more securely and more positively if the family is kept intact – except when violence and abuse is present. The conclusions, in other words, do not support divorce; they are simply saying the outlook for these children is not as bleak as has been publicized. There is another issue that one must also look at. These kinds of studies rely a great deal on interviews with the survivors of divorce. It is very convenient for many of these adults or older adolescents to blame all the problems in their lives on their parents' divorce. Scapegoating is very prevalent in today's society – people simply do not want to take responsibility for their own lives. The conclusion of this paper must be that: 1. Divorce will have an effect on children – to think otherwise is naive. 2. Children of divorced families do not automatically develop serious emotional and psychological problems. 3. The full effect of divorce on children will depend on how the parents behave after the divorce, the degree of attachment that was in existence prior to the divorce and the child's own mental state/stability at the time of the divorce. REFERENCES BBC. (2000, November 15). The capital of happy ever after. Retrieved April 05, 2007, BBC Web Site: http://news. bbc. co. uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1024000/1024963. stm Bjornberg, Dr. Ull. (nd). Children and their Families/Children and Society. 2002, Retrieved April 05, 2007, Council of EuropeConseil de l'Europe Web Site: http://eurochild. gla. ac. uk/Documents/CoE/Reports/estud/Estud_2. htm Canetti, Laura, Bachar, Eytan, Weisstub, Esti Galili, De-Nour, Atara Kaplan & Shalev, Arieh Y. (1997, Summer). Parental Bonding And Mental Health In Adolescence. Adolescence 32(126), 381 – 395. Corliss, Richard. (2002, January 28). Does Divorce Hurt Kids? Time 159(4), 40 Cudina, Mira & Obradovic, Josip. (2001, Spring). Child's Emotional Well-being and Parental Marriage Stability in Croatia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 32(2), 247. Field, Tiffany. (1996, Annual). Attachment And Separation In Young Children. Annual Review of Psychology 47, 541-562. Galston, William A. (1996, June). Divorce American style. The Public Interest, 12 – 27. Garelli, Juan Carlos. (1997). Controversial Aspects Of Bowlby's Attachment Theory. Bowlby's Theory of Attachment. Retrieved April 03, 2007, Attachment Research Center at St. John's University Web Site: http://rdz. stjohns. edu/lists/bowlby-l/ Hyatt, Kay. (1999, November 19). Children's Adjustment to Divorce Largely in Hands of Parents. Retrieved April 03 2007, National Council on Family Relations Web Site: http://www. cfr. org/pdf/childr_1. pdf Marano, Hara Estroff. (2000, March). Divorced? Psychology Today 33(2), 56. Simon, R. J. , & Altstein, H. (2003). Marriage and Divorce (pp. 5-7, 29-34). New York: Lexington Books. Victorian State Conference of Teams. (2001, October). Looking forward in Confidence. A Married Couple's Movement: Conference Reports & Proceedings Web Site: http://www. tol-oceania. catholic. org. au/publications_vicconf. htm#Victorian%20State%20Conference Weddings, Marriage & Divorce. (n. d. ). Retrieved April 25, 2007, from http://www. pbs. org/empires/romans/empire/weddings. html

Judging yourself

This is a strong trial that could go well over either way. Even though the state at this point in time does not have a right-to-die statue I believe it should. A doctor that one is seeking help and care from should have no say how he/she (the patient) should die. By definition a doctor is â€Å"a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian (dictionary. com)†. Nowhere in that description does it explain a person licensed to declare rightful legal euthinization.Being the daughter of a terminal cancer patient is hard enough. I can't imagine having the extra stress of monitoring how your mother or father dies in the hospital bed. Having a state law for the right to die statue could save so many more families from extra heartache. After all it plan and simple is your very own life to live and if one wants to die in a certain way; by golly they should be allowed to. Plan and simple the statue involves, shifting the right-to-die laws from g ranting permission for death to defining hat constitutes causing a premature death.Thereby allowing choosing timely death will require new thinking within the right-to-die movement. But this second approach is likely to be supported by more people who formerly were undecided about the right-to-die. We all want to avoid premature death for ourselves. And we can support new laws that prohibit helping or causing anyone to die too soon. But this still becomes an issue because everyone has different opinions and views on life death and even health treatments.Looking on the court side the law against causing premature death specifies safeguards that might be fulfilled in order to prove that the death was timely rather than premature. And because these sateguards are included in the written law, no Judge can exclude such facts and opinions from any subsequent trial. A great example would be the last trial of Jack Kevorkian was lost because the defense could not offer testimony from the pat ient and the family that death at this time was the best possible alternative.The Judge ruled that all such facts and opinions were irrelevant. The only question was whether Jack Kevorkian gave a lethal injection. â€Å"If Dr. Kevorkian had been charged with causing premature death, he would never have been sent to prison because the death of Thomas Youk† who was dying of ALS†was not premature (Park, Permission)†. The fact that he died a timely death would have been proven by presenting safeguards that were fulfilled in choosing the best time for him to die.

Giant Squid essays

Giant Squid essays The giant squid was known to be a monstrous-creature but it was fictitious. There are several tales about the monstrous sea creatures that came from the mariners. It was believed that it did not exist since there were no solid evidence that were available but then time came when groups claimed seeing a giant creature in deep-ocean. Scientists became curious so they gathered specimens. Squids are considered to belong in Architeuthidae family of cephalopod class and its scientific name is Architeuthis dux. The giant squids are not visible at the surface of the ocean. They are considered as one of the biggest animals in the world for the reason that the entire length can be as more than 60 feet. They live in deep-ocean and there was no scientific documentation that they have seen the giant squid alive since they are believed to be growing and living down to 10,000 feet under the water. But now, there are several evidences that they exist because several body parts of the giant squid were seen ashore and sometimes fishermens were able to catch body parts in their nets. The recovered specimens weighted a total of almost one thousand kilograms and it was discovered on the surface waters of New Zealand. Recently in Japan, they were able to document and caught a live giant squid in its natural habitat and later on, in 2006, they recorded a moving giant squid just to prov e that they exists. The physical feature of a giant squid is the same with the small squids that we have seen except that they are huge. They have a soft body with no bones that is why they are considered to be invertebrate. They are not as heavy as the whale since they look like almost the same with the octopus. The head of a giant squid is large enough to hold two big eyes having the size of a basketball. The beak is pointed and they use their gills to breathe. The giant squid have eight arms and in each arm there exists two rows of suckers on the undersides. There ...

Animal Farm Power corrupts

Animal Farm, by George Orwell, is a complex book, which conveys a lot information. The book is basically a parallel of the Russian Revolution, but Orwell also wrote this book with, as an objective, to understand the major theme: power corrupts. This theme is obviously presented in the novel, but to simplify your understanding of this essay, Napoleon will be used as an example of a corrupted individual by power. To conclude this introduction, the corruption of Napoleon will be presented under three aspects: Desire, Achievements and absolute power. Dishonest by those in power’, despite the dictionary definition of the word, corruptions could be used in many ways and contexts, here is an example: Napoleon’s, Squealer’s and Snowball’s nature has been corrupted by old Major’s speech. Only his words and idea corrupted the pigs’ nature. Napoleon forgot what he was and only foreshadowed what he would be as a leader. I think that this is the first step of how power corrupts someone. The desire of power makes Napoleon forget about his own nature because he only sees how he could rule the farm. This desire came from the pigs’ inferiority to Mr. Jones and to add some more Napoleon was for sale, so his value to the farm owner was even more relevant. It is the same story in the real life, with Joseph Stalin and the Tsar Nikolay Alexandrovich Romanov or Nicholas II. Stalin was a peasant which from nothing got the absolute power because the desire that he had to get it was so big and did some smart moves, just like Napoleon. Stalin took advantage from the situation to get out of his labor class. This communicates that we, inferior people, ‘’hate’’ so much powerful individuals. Not because they are because we would so much like to take their place. This feeling could be summarized with the word jealousy, desire and pride. Let’s get back to our pig, only the idea got him ready to take Mr. Jones’ place, by learning the alphabet and creating animalism as it is said at the page 13 of the novel. Those are two hints proving Napoleon’s corruption and so only because of an old individual who said I had a dream! Now that the corruption cycle started, our pig, Napoleon is ahead of the ‘’temporary government’’ followed with Squealer and Snowball. They took control of the farm and now get advantages which will get them attached to their power. They now could do anything from the farm as they are the leading group and they have Squealer which is all the propaganda that cover up their dishonest activities. One of these activities is stated at the page 14 when Squealer explains to the animals that the pigs need the milk and the apple for their health, that if the pigs were to get sick Mr. Jones would be back on the farm. So all the animals concluded that the milk and the apples shall be reserved for the pigs. We clearly see that the pigs are now manipulating he others animals, another proof that their intentions are again corrupted by power as if the pigs wouldn’t had it, they would never had lie to the other animals on the farm. It’s the same story in real life, Stalin and Trotsky, when Nikolay died, with the control of the Medias they (Squealer) they set up exactly what they wanted. More corrupted than the others, Stalin even took control of one Newspaper and made it the national journal calling it ‘’La Pravda’’ which means the truth in English, by doing so he gets another key to control the population. This show the ‘’Facette’’ of power that everybody would like: the benefits that corrupts. At this point, our individual, Napoleon has already reached a certain level of corruption as he gains more and more power. The last step he can reach is, absolutism and to do so he need to eliminate any other leader and get another way to control despite Squealer to gain the ultimate power. This is exactly what Napoleon will do, by chasing Snowball off the charm with the puppies he took from their mother as it is written at the page 21 of the book. Here we can see the complete corruption of Napoleon as he now has all the power he wanted, he does anything he wants even what is forbidden by the amendment, like drinking alcohol or sleeping in beds. In a parallel world, it’s the same story with Joseph Stalin, who exiled Trotsky, the only other leader that limited his powers. In the both world this complete corruption could be seen because of one detail. Both leaders killed to get their entire power without any problem, act that no slave, normal person or powerless human could do without getting punished. On a deeper level we can even say that by doing so the leaders corrupted their fate and souls because killing is the only way to ‘’divide’’ in a breaking way your soul. Finally everyone would absolutely like to get power as it gets you ‘’higher’’ than others, everyone would enjoy it as it gets you benefits and finally everyone would like to be upon everyone else as it’s human nature. The power really corrupts and one of the main reasons is that man will always want more: let’s take a guy in a Porsche parking beside a Honda civic, he will feel good but he know his power is limited as the dude at the cross light laughs in his Ferrari but even him feels limited when he see that family passing by on their yacht at port. Even them when they are enjoying the sun will see a private jet taking off they will know that the person inside is even more powerful. This cycle will never end because even the owner of this private jet will feel inferior to the guy in the space station with his clown nose. This only shows us that power corrupts because men will always want more as feeling such as happiness aren’t supposed to be developed with properties material and power.

Assess the impact of re-introducing rent control on the market for Coursework

Assess the impact of re-introducing rent control on the market for housing - Coursework Example There are cases when the owners build the houses in order to offer these in rents to the individuals so as to meet the increasing demand for housing (Besanko and Braeutigam, 2013). The owners fix the rent for the houses in order to earn some profit but there is a concept of rent control that imposes a ceiling on the rent in cases when the owners charge an exceptionally high rent (Besanko and Braeutigam, 2013). Hence, the paper aims at carrying out a study on the market structure of the housing market and the impacts of the policies adopted for rent control. The paper also offers a scope to understand the microeconomic theory related to the rent control. The structure of the housing market is based on the model that considers various aspects such as the availability of cheap credit that in turn increases the demand for houses in the international market (Glaeser and Luttmer, 2003). As a result, there is a relative price of the houses due to low availability of the houses. However, there was a high availability of low quality houses which forced the investors to raise the prices of the houses in order to earn high profit. These features are essential for the Life-Cycle model of Housing where the prices of houses match with the quality of the houses available in the international market (Krugman and Wells, 2012). On the contrary, the characteristics of the buyers willing to purchase the houses differ based on the age, wealth and income they earn. In order to bring in equilibrium within the market, the prices of the houses are equalized with the quality of the available houses and also it is based on the demand and supply aspects in th e housing market. Thus, the study suggests that the distribution of the houses depends on the numbers of buyers as well as the quality of houses available in the market. Further, the suitability of the available houses to the buyers is also an essential factor that increases the number of buyers willing to