Recession Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Recession - Essay Example The beginning and impacts of the 2008 recession in individual countries today remains a constant reminder of the policies and measures the governments and financial analysts in the financial institutions ought to address as priorities. Most economists and analysts tend to emphasis on the start and spread of the recession in 2008. While its spread is quite clear in the western countries during and after 2008, there is no doubt it began in the United States towards the end of 2007. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recognizes the global recession to have started in December 2007 in the US economy, when it was identified with the sliding of the labour market especially in the last quarter of the year (Borbely, 2009). However, it was only a hit for the national economy of the US until it spread to other linked economies in 2008. The cause of the recession is linked to the economic cyclic performance of the housing market in USA, which later affected the economic performances of other industries. The United Stated had been experiencing a steady economic growth, with a healthy labour market and a rapid growth in the housing market after 2001. In the housing sector, home prices increased and more construction took place, contributing to increased employment, mortgage financing and growth in real estates and generated a positive wealth effect that triggered higher spending vital for the overall economic growth (Goodman and Mance, 2011). All the housing price inflations in the USA tended to follow a particular pattern after WWWII. The 2001-2006 case was no exception, as it was a period marked with loose monetary policy. Two years prior to the 2007 recession, the US economy experienced expansion in credit and money supply. This fuelled excessive borrowing at low interest rates to finance housing purchases; this in turn increased aggregate demand for household products and other consumption (stlouisfed.org, 2010).

The massacre in Nanking Essay Example for Free

The massacre in Nanking Essay The massacre in Nanking which is popularized by Chang as the Rape of Nanking is indeed on of the darkest period of Asian history. Although it is described for its cruel and terrible scenes, history has almost forgotten these painful and darkest hours of Nanking people. Thanks to Iris Chang, her book became a living testimony of that tragedy that will always remind us that a lot of lives were wasted and a lot of people were intensely tortured in the hands of Japanese army. This book will serve as a reminder for Japanese people of the cruel nature of their ancestors. In the introduction of the book, Chang described the number of deaths in a mean that anyone can imagine in their vivid imagination. According to her, if the dead were to link hands, they will stretch from Nanking to Hangchow which is too far to imagine. It means that those cadavers can form a line of 200 miles. Other than that, their blood will weigh 200 ton and their bodies could fill twenty-five hundreds of railroad cars. If they will be piled up, their bodies could reach a height of seventy-four storey building. Indeed that is a huge number of innocent people. More than their death, the real tragedy for the Nanking people is their cruel way of execution which is merely inhuman and even animals are not worthy to experience those tortures. Thus, reading the book can give the reader so much agony and sympathy for the victims. The scenes are so painful to imagine that you will feel so much resentment to the Japanese. As a journalist by profession, Chang used her journalistic skill of documenting events. Her descriptions of those horrible scenes were enough to make the book a best seller and highly acclaimed by scholars. Most part of her book is narration of Japanese cruel activities as well as some historical backgrounds of Japan. Her book was based on the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin whom played important roles in the Nanking Safety Zone. From its name, this are had protected a lot of Nanking civilians from the cruel hands of Japanese Army. John Rabe was able to shelter some 200,000 Nanking civilians from slaughter. Minnie Vautrin was an American missionary who saved a lot of school girls from the Japanese Army in Ginling Girls College. Both of them shared the horrible life in Nanjing during its Japanese occupation. They were able to witness and even take some photographs of those kinds of brutalities. Most of Chinese brutal activities are difficult to imagine such as forcing the fathers to rape their daughters as well as the sons to their mothers. Japanese soldiers are also fond of kidnapping women for them to become their sex slaves or comfort women. They were tied in a chair for almost forever just waiting for the next Japanese soldier to use their body. Another rape victim was found with a golf stick rammed into her. (Chang, 94) Other than that, there were also a rampant mass execution where killing the most number of people in a shortest time became a contest for them. As a form of execution, Nanking civilians were beheaded, buried alive, some were also buried up to their waist and the other of their body was fed to German Shepherds. They also use the civilians as human target for their bayonet practices. Other than, they also give severe punishment for no reason such as forcing the students to hold heavy objects, sit on their heels, stand barefoot in the snow, and run in the playground until they collapse. Overall, 340,000 Chinese died and around 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese men and women were physically and sexually abused. All these started when the Japanese Army swept into Nanking in 1937. Although their cruel activities lasted for only six weeks, still the terror it brought to its people is a lifetime of trauma. Originally, the main goal of the offenders is to haunt those Chinese armies who are disguising as civilians. As a result of that operation against those Chinese soldiers, a lot of innocent civilians were executed. Good thing about the book is that, it did not focus solely on the senseless cruelty of the Japanese army but also she mentioned some parts of Japanese history especially those who are prior to the 1937 incidence. She mentioned about Mathew Perry and his mission to the land of the rising sun. She also tried to explain why the Japanese was able to do those inhuman punishments to the people of Nanking. Indeed, it has something to do with their history, culture and religious background. Chang explain that their cruelty towards other people is caused by their belief that the Emperor is the only descendant of their sun goddess Amaterasu. Because they are non Christians in nature, they disregard the Christian idea of brotherhood and loving other people. They also think that they are superior as Western people and have the right of access to the natural wealth of Asian countries. Other than that, their participation in the Second World War gave them an ample pride. During that time, being able to participate in a world war together with powerful nations such as United States and Germany is an indication that Japan is the most powerful country in Asia. Meanwhile, as I read the book, the resentment of the author towards the perpetuator of the time are becoming more intense. More than being Chinese by blood, Chang’s grandparents were able to witness that horrible event in Chinese history. No words can explain her bitterness and resentment in her renowned research that it caused her to lose her sanity. If the author herself was not able to stand the horror of the Nanking massacre who was not able to witness the event, how much more the terror that it brought to the survivors of that tragedy including Chang’s grandparents. I admit that reading the book gave me a vivid image of what really happened during World War II. The book is a reflection of the everyday reality that was experienced by peoples especially those countries that were conquered by the Japanese Army. More than understanding Chinese history, the book presented more of Japanese history and culture especially the cruelty of its army. Therefore the book doesn’t help me understand Chinese history. The book is just a mere description of the atrocities of World War II focusing more on Japanese history. Instead of helping me understand Chinese history, it does explain why until this very moment, there is so much resentment among Chinese people towards Japan. Other than the intense of inhuman acts towards the Nanking victim, there is no initiative from the Japanese government to give a public apology. Worst than that, the Japanese don’t admit the crime and don’t even remember the incident. The younger generation in Japan doesn’t know about their cruelty because it was not taught in their history class. Even the Chinese forget about this horrible part of their history aside from the Nanking survivors and their descendants. Therefore, this book is really a breakthrough just remind both the Chinese and Japanese people of that forgotten holocaust. And for me, not only the oppressor and the oppressed parties should remember this horrific period in their history. All countries should be aware of the terror brought by world wars and the cruelty towards other race is widely condemned. It can happen not only in Nanking but in other parts of the world. It is a worldwide problem which is known as genocide. A lot of people may suffer from cruel death because of political reasons and the sad thing about that is most of them are innocent. Chang’s documentary of that horrific incident serves as an eye opener for every people with regards to their nationality that war is evil and it can only ruin the lives of innocent people. Although her work is highly acclaimed by scholars most especially its amazed readers, still Chang received a lot of criticism especially when it comes to the technical aspect of the book. Some people in the academe have seen many historical inaccuracies as well as grammatical errors. Grammatical errors can be forgiven for it can be the fault of the copywriter. Technical errors are really inevitable and as a matter of fact, a journalist like Chang also commits that kind of mistake. But there are no excuses for committing historical errors. We cannot blame Iris Chang because she is not a historian by profession. But as a researcher, she should be responsible when it comes to the accuracy of her data. Indeed, her historical inaccuracies are so serious because most of them are some basic information of Japanese history. Here are some of the examples: By the late 15th and early 16th centuries Japan was ruled by the Tokugawa family, who sealed off the island nation from foreign influence (Chang, 21). The reign of Tokugawa family started in 1603 therefore the Tokugawa era in Japan started in early 17th century. Chang also wrote, In July 1853, he (Matthew Perry) sent two ships belching black smoke into Tokyo Bay giving the people of Japan their first glimpse of metal-clad, steam-powered ships. Surrounding himself with some sixty to seventy aggressive-looking men armed with swords and pistols, Perry strode through the capital of the Shogun and demanded meetings with the highest-ranking officials in Japan (Chang, 21). The truth is, Perry was not able to go to that place which is believed to be Edo or Tokyo during this day. Other than that, she also explained in her book, In an era later known as the Meiji Restoration, Japan resounded with nationalistic slogans, such as Revere the Emperor! Expel the barbarians! and Rich country, strong army (Chang, 23)! Actually there is no Japanese Era such as Meiji period. This Meiji restoration that she is talking about happened from 1868 to 1912 and it is more of a social revolution than a period like Tokugawa. And lastly, Chang wrote that the United Nations created a committee for war investigation in March 1944(Chang, 169). It is impossible to happen because the United Nation was not yet chartered in 1944. How this book can become a historical reference it its content is inaccurate? For me, Chang was not objective in writing this book. It is obvious that Chang was driven by her resentment to the Japanese government and the desire to uplift her Chinese roots. And because her grandparents are involved with that traumatic period in Nanking, her book serves as an advocacy campaign for her grandparents to get the justice that they deserve. While reading the book, anyone can notice that Chang is trying her best to give a negative image of Japanese culture especially their army. We can say that she met her objectives and her way of documenting the story is enough to ruin the image of the Japanese. Her description of those cruel acts will make the readers forget the technical errors of the books as well as its historical inaccuracies. Anyone who will read the book will feel so much sympathy for the victims and really seek justice for them. That is really her objective as a author but alas, she shared the same fate with her grandparents. Although her book became a major success and the tragedy of Nanking is now known worldwide, Chang died miserably and lose her hope that someday the perpetuators will pay for their acts. Although it is inevitable for her to show her biases, it would be better if she had presented the other side of the story. It is unfair for the Japanese their side was never heard and they were never consulted by the author. If only she also take the side of the perpetuators, her book will sound more objective and even the Japanese can accept her book and learn from it. The reason why until today, is not admitting that crime is because their sides were not heard in the book. There are also historical errors regarding Japanese history that is why it is easy for the Japanese to ignore the book. The criticisms about the book especially its technical errors are another factor for the Japanese to ignore the book and pretend that there is no such thing as Nanking massacre in the history. If only Chang was more careful and objective, her book will achieve more than recognition and market success. She and her fellow Chinese community in Nanking can get the justice that they are longing for. It would be better if Chang has included some stories of Japanese soldiers focusing on their feelings towards the victim. We can never say that all Japanese soldiers are cruel and maybe some of them were pressured by their officials to do those inhuman activities. Other than the sufferings of the Chinese people, it would be better if Chang was able to mention the hardships encountered by the Japanese soldiers during their stay in Nanking. This will give her book a sense of balance which is expected from her because she is a journalist. As a conclusion, we can say that the book is really a breakthrough for Asian history. The once infamous tragedy of the Nanking people became part of Asian history through the angered motivated research of the victim’s descendants. Although Iris Chang is not a historian by profession, she was able to convey her main point inspite of the rampant errors and historical criticisms of her book. Without looking at its market success, still the book is a failure because the author herself was not able to get the justice that she demands asides from the heavy accusations of her critics. But still, the book served as a reminder for every nation of the atrocities that war can produce and the fate of millions of innocent people who are involve in the war.

Morality Towards Animals Kantian Vs Utilitarian

Morality Towards Animals Kantian Vs Utilitarian Historically, there has been some debate between Kantian and Utilitarian philosophers on the moral status of animals. This great debate over whether or not moral consideration should be granted to non-human animals deserves to be rectified at some point. Many argue that there is a resolution to this debate that can be used via a distinction between the two to clearly distinguish human beings from all other animals on the planet. But, as shall be shown in this paper, the evidence thus far for such a distinction is seriously doubtful at best. Unfortunately without such a distinction, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue, with a straight philosophical face, that non-human animals should be afforded less than equivalent moral considerations to that of human beings. After all, if no meaningful distinction between human beings and non-human animals, than we ultimately are arguing from an uncertain position that says one group should receive better treatment than the other. This paper shall examine the debate over this issue, primarily through Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives, and hopefully enlighten the problems in both positions, though particularly the Kantian one. Although the Utilitarian position on the issue of moral concerns for non-human animals is far from perfect, it represents a more justifiable position than the Kantians. Its not surprising that many of the people who argue are the very same people who are most interested in justifying and continuing practices towards non-human animals that cause pain, suffering and death to non-human animals (Gruen, 2003). Often the welfare opposed to the rights of non-human animals is more widely accepted which can often confuse the debate in question. People tend to argue that humans unlike animals have characteristics that clearly distinguish the differences those of which include rationality, autonomy, moral agency, language capability, free will and self-consciousness among others (Garner, 2010). Interestingly, Act Utilitarians believe that regardless of human beings and non-human animals, any action toward these is only permissible if it follows the balance of pleasure outweighing pain (Garner, 2010). Not all claims can say as much. The hope, no doubt, is that philosophical wrangling can justify and absolve them of practices that are largely recognized to be cr uel and harmful to non-human animals. Unfortunately for the groups still largely oblivious to the moral considerations for non-human animals, we find that there is no meaningful way, morally or philosophically, to separate humans from non-human animals. The result, in the hopes of being intellectually consistent, is that we need to give consideration to the suffering and moral position of non-human animals equally, as we would also do for human beings. Of course, supporters of the above position immediately argue that there is a clear division between human beings and non-human animals based on speciation alone. In this belief, we might give moral consideration to a fellow human being, but a cow or chicken? A chicken for instance, is not considered a human being (for those who have doubts) and cannot lay claim to the species-specific moral considerations that humans enjoy according to this claim. But, for the philosopher, membership in one species over the other is of utmost irrelevance, especially when considering morality. It is, in essence, considered a non-issue if we cannot in-turn provide evidence for why such species differentiation translates into a differing of moral consideration (Garner, 2010). Ultimately it would be like arguing that any accident of birth is reason enough to deny certain individuals moral concern: perhaps leaving out entirely all women, overweight people, short people or Japanese people. The division be tween human beings and non-human animals must be demonstrated on some other plain other than purely biological grounds. In as such, many have turned to the idea that human beings differ due to their possession of abilities that are unique to our species and that are concrete us firmly in place to that of the rest of the outside non-human world. But, it seems that this argument has fallen flat too. As stated in Gruen (2003), human behaviour and cognition share deep roots with the behaviour and cognition of other animals. There have been numerous examples in the non-human animal world of behaviours that are very similar, if not identical to behaviours that most humans would consider to be uniquely human. In any socially complex non-human animal species, there is evidence of what one would consider to be altruistic or familial behaviour. Family ties are often seen in many of the primate species. Primate mothers often stay with their offspring for extended periods of time. Singer (2009) notes that not only do humans have intelligence and language comprehension, but so do great apes, border collies and grey parrots. A famous gorilla named Koko has scored between 70 and 95 on human IQ tests as well as being able to understand approximately one thousand different signs. In addition, Alex the African grey parrot was able to grasp m ore than a hundred words and was able to answer novel questions presented to him on top of being able to understand basic concepts involving shapes and colours (Singer, 2009). Evidence exists of Meerkats who will risk their own safety to stay with family members who are ill or injured (Gruen, 2003). The usage of tools is also common in the non-human animal world, as is the ability to understand symbolic representations, the basis for language. Some non-human animals even possess some of humanitys less pleasing cognitive abilities, such as the ability to engage in manipulative or deceptive behaviour (Gruen, 2003). The sum of this evidence is not to argue that non-human animals are identical to humans but rather it is to show that the unique behaviours and abilities that we as human beings cling to are actually found throughout the non-human animal kingdom as well, albeit in less complex forms. Some philosophers have turned to metaphysical characteristics as a way to draw the line between the human and non-human animal worlds. Kant puts forth one of the most notable examples of this position. Kants argument is based on the idea that humans are distinguishable from the non-human animal world by power of their personhood and are thus morally considered. In his 1785 Groundwork, Kant proposed that: Every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things (Kant 1785, 428 as quoted in Gruen, 2003). Essentially what Kant believed is that the rational ego of human beings distinguishes us from all other non-human animal life. In less distinct terms, a human being has the capability of seeing himself not only as an individual, but as a rational being able to differentiate the world that grants personhood to human beings and thus affording them moral consideration. What Kant is trying to say is that human beings are rational whereas non-human animals are not. With that being said, Kant believes that irrational animals may be dealt with and disposed of at ones discretion (Kant, LA, 7, 127 as quoted in Gruen, 2003). Kantians argue that it is the ability of human beings to question the source of their desires rationally that separates humans and animals. Whereas the non-human animal is focused only on its sensory perceptions, human beings are not only able to perceive, but question the very nature of their perceptions. According to Kant and his followers, this rational ability is the v ery reason we can justify relegating non-human animals to a lower moral position. As is obvious, there are problems with the Kantian position. Beyond the realization of an artificially imagined separation between man and beast (which is after all, the point in question), Kants position on the matter embarrassingly has difficulties with the matter of what is considered marginal humans, or human individuals that do not possess Kants rational capacity that is a prerequisite for personhood. As understood by many and supported by Singer (2009), there are some humans that fall under categories of mental retardation. For instance, the mentally challenged would have to be excluded from moral consideration by Kants logic, as they are incapable of expressing rational self-awareness that his personhood demands (Gruen, 2003). Singer (2009) demonstrates that some people with profound mental retardation have IQs lower than 25; have an ability to understand that exceeds their ability to speak and may only have the capacity to follow basic directions, and yet these people would c ertainly never be passed over for moral consideration. Whereas, dogs, horses, dolphins and pigeons have been trained to follow basic directions and perform useful work, have IQs over 25 and have an ability to understand that which exceeds their ability to speak, are. Kantians have responded to this concern in a variety of ways; as human beings, we could consider our behaviour towards these marginal individuals as indicative of our own moral sense. Or perhaps, these individuals, because they possess the capacity to become rational individuals, must be treated with the same moral consideration as all other human beings. But, by far the strongest response to the Kantian position comes from the Utilitarians, who reject rationality outright as a marker of moral consideration just as we have already rejected other supposedly unique human attributes (Garner, 2010; Gruen, 2003). Utilitarians argue that the only moral consideration worth considering is one that focuses on promoting happiness and the satisfaction of individual interests, and reducing suffering and interest frustration (Gruen, 2003). Jeremy Bentham was one of the strongest supporters of this position on moral concern. He wrote in 1781: Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by The insensibility of ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] What else is it that should trace the insuperable line [between humans and nonhuman animals]? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse? [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk, but, Can they suffer? (Gruen, 2003). According to the Utilitarian position, our moral concerns for non-human animals should be extended as far as the animals capacity to suffer and experience pain in all the ways they are capable of suffering. With the rise in populations, the need to provide mass quantities of food has created an animals nemesis. Factory farming is the most common method used to produce food for human beings, and it is done at an alarming rate. An estimated 8 billion animals in the United States are born, confined, biologically manipulated, transported and ultimately slaughtered each year in methods that create great amounts of suffering (Gruen, 2003). This position has been highly defended by modern Utilitarians who continue to argue that there is no morally justifiable way to separate humans from non-human animals when non-human animals are clearly capable of suffering. Any being capable of suffering should have its interests taken into account and should be granted the same moral consideration regar dless of being human or non-human. Sometimes the Utilitarian position is mistaken for more of an animal rights position than a morals position. Although both positions are similar, the animal rights position believes that there is no circumstance under which an animal should be subject to the will and whim of human beings. As Garner (2010) points out, the animal rights position is more for the equality between the species. One thing to note, however, is that this is not entirely the Utilitarian position. In regards to the Utilitarians belief that non-human animals should not suffer and be extended moral consideration, the Utilitarians also believe that the same would be extended to a human being. But the Utilitarian position allows for the satisfaction of the greater good in all moral matters. If, for instance, more good is done than harm by a particular action, then the Utilitarian would take up the position that the action is morally justifiable. A simpler way of perceiving this is that the Utilitarian could morally justify killing human or non-human animal, if it would save the lives of two other people. Ultimately, the Utilitarians goal is to always reduce harm and suffering, but they unfortunately (when it comes to non-human animals) are not vegetarians. Utilitarians believe that If an animal lived a happy life and was painlessly killed and then eaten by people who would otherwise suffer hunger or malnutrition by not eating the animal, then painlessly killing and eating the animal would be the morally justified thing to do (Gruen, 2003). Seemingly is seems that there are some good and some bad to both positions. Take for example the Kantian position; Emmanuel Kant did not support cruelty towards non-human animals, he just believed that they did not warrant the same moral considerations that human beings do. According to Kant, non-human animals were non-rationally thinking creatures and thus not afforded moral consideration but, he did argue that for the human beings that cause unnecessary suffering to animals. Kant believed that non-human animals were subject to the will and whim of human beings but that when they were put to work for us, they should not be strained beyond their capacities, he also believed that human beings had the right to kill non-human animals as long as it was done quickly and without pain (Kant Gregor, 1996). In essence, Kant felt that although non-human animals did not merit moral consideration, human beings had some type of a duty to them. Clearly, like the Kantian theory, the Utilitarian approach of moral concern for non-human animals is not without its own flaws. The Kantian argument fell apart because of a false distinction between human beings and non-human animals. The Utilitarians, base the fate of individuals and their relative happiness on a type of mathematical equation. Though contrary to some degree, at least on the question of extending moral concern to non-human animals, the Utilitarians recognize that there is no meaningful distinction at play between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom. In this regard, the Utilitarians will always win out in this philosophical debate, at least for this author. Basing an arbitrary distinction between human and non-human animals just to justify cruelty and suffering is utterly beyond defence from a moral perspective. To ignore suffering because it challenges human beings imagined superior position in the world is not acceptable. Where, then, does that leave the argument of whether to extend moral concern and consideration to non-human animals. Clearly this author rejects the unsubstantiated evidence for drawing a distinct line between human beings and non-human animals, but cannot quite accept the extreme Utilitarian position that all matters of moral concern can be written like a equation. Perhaps it would be wise to investigate the work of other philosophical theories, such as ecological feminists, who argue that the entire approach to the issue is flawed because it fails to grasp the institutional culture of dominance upon which our actions are built (Gruen, 2003). Within this larger context, both the Kantian and Utilitarian positions can be seen as justifications (to vastly different degrees) for a culture that projects its will onto the entire world with dominant force. The bigger question for future consideration of this issue is to not simply question whether or not non-human animals are deserving of the same moral considerations that are granted to human beings, but whether or not human beings have moral authority in the first place to dictate such concerns and arbitrarily impose their will on the rest of the world.

Hamlet and Oedipus Rex: The Birth of Kings :: comparison compare contrast essays

Hamlet and Oedipus Rex: The Birth of Kings Two plays, "Hamlet", written by William Shakespeare and "Oedipus Rex", written by Sophocles share a common bond of illusion and innocence. The protagonists in both plays appear at the beginning only to have changed so that reality has broken through the illusion with less than desirable results for either. In these two plays, two kings must leave their innocence behind as the truth leads them first, to enlightenment and then to their downfall. This is a battle between the light and the darkness, the light being the truth and the darkness being the lie. Throughout the two plays we can see that both are isolated in a world of their own, completely unaware of the truths surrounding them. In Hamlet's case, growing up under the loving care of his parents, he believes that his father died of natural causes. Or, in Oedipus' case, the main character thinks that he has escaped Apollo's prophecy that decreed that he would grow up and murder his father, the king, and marry his mother, the queen. This eventually leads to the point at which both have their "eyes" opened to the reality surrounding their "illusionary" worlds. Hamlet is approached by the ghost of his dead father who reveals that his own brother, Hamlet's uncle, murdered him. Oedipus Rex discovers the truth when the blind prophet, Teiresias accuses him of being the one who murdered King Laios therefore fulfilling his destiny in which he had sought to avoid. In the end, the actions taken by both lead to their downfalls in different ways, death for Hamlet and loss of vision for Oedipus Rex. In the beginning, we see Hamlet living in an illusion blocking him from seeing what is really there. Hamlet is under the belief that his father died of natural causes and nothing more. As he comes to realize the truth, he leaves behind the safe harbor of innocence and naïveté and enters the uneasy world of adulthood and experience. Standing within his castle, he makes a speech to himself and to God commenting on the quickness in which his mother married his uncle. It is at this point where the beginning of the end of his innocence starts. He believes that by marrying his uncle, his mother betrayed his father. By doing that, the illusion that his parents had the perfect union is shattered forever. In the play, Hamlet says, "Must I remember? Why, she would hang on him. As if increase of appetite had grown. By what it fed on, and yet within a month.

Macbeth A Character Analysis O :: essays research papers

A Character Analysis of Lady Macbeth   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  “What’s done cannot be undone'; This is what Lady Macbeth said to her husband when he returned from murdering King Duncan. The statement is subtle and explains her way of thinking. Although Lady Macbeth is not completely evil-minded, she does play a big part as the antagonist in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is a cold, heartless, and deceitful character. What did she get for being evil?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Shakespeare did not supply us with much solid information about Lady Macbeth’s outward appearance. Context clues are all that can be used to assume what she looks like. Examples of context clues are her manner of speaking, actions, and the surrounding characters’ actions. Lady Macbeth often spoke hastily and interrupted. She is a cold, two-faced woman who resorts to going through extremes to get her way. Lady Macbeth also assisted Macbeth in the murder of King Duncan by giving him the idea of killing the King. In scene 1-5 Macbeth addressed his lady as his “dearest partner of greatness';. He might have meant that he sees her as his equal in authority. Most people see people in power and authority as being solid characters. Lady Macbeth might have been a solidly built woman, perhaps brunette, and elegantly dressed, for her husband was of importance and they probably were higher in the social ladder. Through her actions and words, Lady Macbeth’s personality can be summed up in one word: deceitful. She would have done anything to get her way and made sure to do so. In act 1-7 she stated that she easily would have killed her own baby if she promised to do so. She is not trustworthy of anyone but her husband, if that. If it weren’t for her, many murders would not have taken place. She was the driving force is Macbeth’s reasoning and his added to his downfall.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Knowing now her personality traits and assumed physical traits, it’s clear how they fit together. Although she hid it well, any suspecting character could have very well seen the ice in her eyes. Lady Macbeth did not radiate kindness from her appearance because that was not what she felt inside. Her amoral motives showed in her body language, for a truly innocent being would be graceful and could never harm another with such ease.

Critical and creative thinking skills Essay

Critical and creative thinking skills are used throughout our lives to help us make important decisions and guide us through our most difficult and treasured moments. These particular thinking skills are deemed to be higher levels of thought and through this higher level of thinking, help us make both personal and professional decisions. According to Le Cornu (2009), critical thinking is defined â€Å"as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered† (p.1). This type of thinking embodies three different characteristics in its approach, these three dimensions are, analytic, evaluation and creative. In taking this approach one must be ableto think critically through reflection, observation of the major components and also incorporate some creativity to come up with unique ways to address the situation. Utilizing this approach guides us and gives us a strategy to incorpo rate both critical and creative thinking which work hand in hand to allow us to arrive at our final decision. Critical and creative thinking are thought to â€Å"involve a complex approach to arriving at an educated decision by implementing a strategy for questioning and reasoning that will allow arrival at a final well informed outcome† (Nicholls, 2010). I have used critical and creative thinking in my life many times, most recently I used this thinking process to make a very important decision. This decision consisted of deciding whether to come back school and pursue my Masters in Psychology with an emphasis in Behavioral Health. This decision required thoughtful thinking and was used to obtain the best possible decision I could. I decided to use this method of thinking because, according to Paul & Elder (2006), â€Å"critical thinking is the active, persistent and careful consideration of a belief or form of knowledge, the grounds that support it and the conclusions that follow† (p.5). I considered this to be a very important decision therefore I  understood that it would require thoughtful consideration to arrive at the right choice for me. At this point in my life three major things had to be evaluated, analyzed and thought about creatively. My family, my career, and the value of obtaining a graduate degree. I had to ta ke extensive time and weigh the pros and cons of returning to school at this point. I had to examine those major factors critically and I also had to be creative in my thinking to work out the details. Nicholls (2010), states that creativity â€Å"involves forming ideas to solve problems and resolve issues† (p.12). In considering such a life changing decision, intellectual and out of the box methods had to be considered. My family consists of my 3 year old daughter and my fiancà ©e. In making this very important decision I had to examine how this decision would affect these two very important people. Factors included, time and money. Evaluating if my family would suffer because of the time and energy I would use pursuing my degree. Also, how would the amount of tuition effect our financial status and how would we adjust to this. Being a fulltime mom for two years, living off of one salary, having no savings, were all factors that had to be taken into consideration. On one hand, obtaining a higher degree could potentially increase our income, however one the other hand, paying the tuition in the interim while still living off of one salary had to be taken into consideration. These very important issues all had to be evaluated and analyzed. In taking these issues into consideration I was offered a full time position, providing ABA intervention to children on the Autism Spectrum. This presented an exciting, positive opportunity except for the fact that I was not thinking about returning to school at the very same time. This exciting opportunity presented me with both obstacles and benefits that I had to incorporate. Some of these obstacles included being able to perform at the best of my abilities, completing tasks proficiently and number one on the list ensuring that I have enough time to spend with my family. In examining these obstacles I had to analyze the immediate benefits that this entailed as well, one of which included, having two salaries, having the financial security that two incomes can provide. Being that my daughter is only three years old, constantly growing and changing each day, every minute spent away from her, could potentially be a min ute that I missed a major milestone in her life. Included in this struggle for time would be less time to complete  school work, to study, to interact with classmates. Therefore in turn leaving less time to take in the overall experience that a graduate program has to offer. Having all this to consider I had to resort to sound thinking otherwise known as critical and creative thinking which â€Å"requires both imagination and intellectual standards† (Paul &Elder) (p.4). These things contributed to the quality of my decision in that I took the time to analyze all factors, evaluate how these things would both have a negative or positive affect, and be creative in the ways that I could go about planning, and organizing my life to incorporate this change. In doing this I used â€Å"cognitive skills or strategies that increased the probability of a desirable outcome† (Halpern 1998). My education, affordability, time, completing assignments to the best of my abilities and learning all appropriate information were all things that had to be taken into consideration. Going back to school requires dedication in time, money and consistency. Would I have enough time to complete assignments and tasks, would I be able to afford this? Considering all options I finally arrived at the decision to return to school and accomplish my dream of obtaining a master’s degree. When I thought methodically, incorporated a strategy that allowed myself to evaluate and analyze the pros and cons, while also incorporating some creativity I was able to see that this was the right decision for me. In thinking critically and creatively I came to the conclusion that it would not be perfect, I would not be able to fulfill all my duties every day. However with patience, organization, and discipline I am currently on the right track, and am happy with the outcome thus far. There are days when I cannot believe I made this decision. There are times when I am just too exhausted to make that special meal for my family and feel defeated. However, after taking a few moments for myself I am able to realize that there is tomorrow, and in that day I can once again try and accomplish what I did not the day before. In thinking this way I am still incorporating critical and creative thinking skills in which bring about a positive outcome. References Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispisitions skills, structure training, and meta cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist 53(4), 440-445. Le Cornu, A. (2009). Meaning internalizations and Externalization: Towards a fuller understanding of the process of reflection and its role in the construction of the self. Adult Quarterly 59 (4), 279-297. Nicholls, D. D. (2010). Development of critical thinking and creativity: Practical guidelines for the postsecondary classroom. ATEA Journal 38 (1), 12-15. Paul, R. E. (2006). Critical thinking: The naute of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education , 34-35.

Why Pakistani People Have Lost a Sense of Nationality

Identity may be defined as a distinctive characteristic of an individual or a particular group of individuals. For one’s survival in this world it is very crucial to maintain his identity. If we expand the criterion of ‘identity’ to national level it is of utmost importance because it is nation’s identity which distinguishes its people from the rest of the world. The importance of national Identity can be better analyzed by the fact that it is the base of all the policies, i. e. domestic and foreign policy and hence the social. economic cultural and ethical development of any country partly depends upon its national identity. In other words actions of a nation are determined by its identity. As far as Pakistan’s identity is concerned, it may be divided into three phases, i. e. pre-partition, post partition and present day. The term ‘identity crisis’ is used to denote a particular situation where by an individual, group of individuals or a nation faces conflicts regarding its identity. These conflicts occur when one’s ideological basis and prevailing circumstances contradict in such a way that the prevailing circumstances dominate the ideological basis. . With reference to Pakistan the history of ‘identity crisis’ have its roots in the late Mughal dynasty. The comfort-loving attitude of the rulers, bloodsheds for the throne, abandoned faith, mismanagement of domestic economic and political matters, absence of updated foreign developments and other moral, ethical and social weaknesses were the major forces which contributed in the identity crisis of the Muslims of South Asia. In pre partition era where by Muslims of south Asia have lost their regime and British rule tighten the span of their social , cultural and political life. Actually they lost their rule just because of the ‘lost identity’. After a half century of submissive life they began to find the ‘lost identity’ and they succeeded. The second phase of identity crisis began very after the inception of Pakistan. The Shia/Sunni crisis at the time of partition was the first of all. But luckily at that time, the crisis was pragmatically resolved by Quaid-e-Azam, so it was buried in a hatchet at that time but later on it burst up from different grounds. The second case of identity crisis in the chronology is the crisis of East and West Pakistan. At the time of inception, Pakistan inherited East and West Pakistan with one and four provinces respectively. Population of East Pakistan alone was more than that of the total population of the four provinces of West Pakistan. The seeds of identity crisis were sown with the ‘language controversy’, where by Urdu was declared as the national language of Pakistan while Urdu was the influencing language only in West Pakistan. This language controversy and some other strategies which lead to the deprived feelings among the natives of East Pakistan and the ultimate consequence was an identity crisis in the form of separation of East Pakistan in 1971. Not only the separation of East Pakistan but, a variety of identity crisis cases stood in the post partition era. The list contains delayed constitutional development, unstable political conditions (due to personal likes and dislikes and lust of power), Social injustice and negative image of Pakistan on international screen. Constitution is the base of any new born state but in case of Pakistan this base couldn’t be established even after about a decade of the inception of Pakistan. So when there was no base for people, the process of identity development started very late. Latterly the termination of 1956’s and 1962’s constitutions fulfilled the remaining part of delayed identity development. All these factors further participated in corruption, national disharmony, rigid attitudes, misconceptions about the religion (partly the role played by ‘mullas’), blind practices on unnecessary customs and a list of moral dilemmas. The identity crisis after the partition threw Pakistan in an ignominious status both at domestic and at international arena. Domestically we couldn’t achieve the social status which we’ve dreamt during the Pakistan movement. Economically we stood at the back end of the global economic stage. And above all we were entitled as a ‘terrorist state’ due to some mismanaged and scattered groups. Even some of them really didn’t have the basic knowledge of their ideological agenda. In present day Pakistan, the situation is more hazardous than that of one discussed in the previous phase. Today’s identity crisis is ‘giant’ in nature aiming to nip our ideology form the bud. Now with changing global environment and with the changing role of Pakistan at international level, the nature of identity crisis has become more complex. The present day crisis may be classified as political, social religious and economic identity crisis. The social and religious crisis work in collaboration. On the religious part, the extremist group has developed misconceptions about the religion. On the other hand the society is facing the ‘cultural war’ through different media. In such a situation the nation, preferably the youth has contradictions with religious implications which is making them unaware of their ideological basis. In the second step the attractive evil (the weapon of cultural war) is becoming dominant. So the nation’s ideological basis is being deployed by the prevailing circumstances, creating identity crisis. In this case we can’t blame the young mind (as he’s not getting the proper guideline and he has not been trained in such a way that he can find the roots the purpose of his existence, secondly the so called knowledge of religion he gets is not authentic). The second type of present day identity crisis in Pakistan is political in nature. In fact our political system has always been ruled by reigns in hands of few influencing groups. No such political platforms were built for the coming generations, to ensure their participation in national or international affairs. It is very necessary to train the youth for the participation in national affairs because they are the people who have to run the country in the future. Unluckily our youth didn’t get any such training at any stage of our 59 years history. The ultimate result was that, the administrators belonged to a specific group, making others so annoyed that others even don’t care to have a look at the mismanagement. This imbalance in the political infrastructure restricted the educated youth to participate in the national policies and ultimately the process of policy making enjoyed the influence of un-educated and narrow minded policy makers, who couldn’t devise the identity goals of the nation till yet. At international political arena we are still facing the vicious circle of ‘terrorism’. Even our government ensured Pakistan’s contribution in the ‘war against terrorism’, but being an Islamic state we become the suspect of any international terrorist act. Here the policy of state is ambiguous, which aims to satisfy the western world but the integration of Muslim world is not to be seen any where. In my opinion we don’t know that where we are standing right now, where we have to go and where we are going? On the part of economy, no doubt our economy grew with in last half decade but only at macro level. The poor is still standing on the place where he was a decade ago. Increasing Unemployment, inflation, and poverty etc are not only contributing in social imbalances but because of these factors, a common man is not able to find the basis of his identity. The identity of a nation is its image, and our image today is ‘a tree whose roots have been cut’. This situation is actually showing our lost identity. We have become much concerned about our outer look but we have forgotten the basis on which we have to develop our inner self. If this process keeps on going with the same velocity, the time is not far when the existence of our identity will vanish. It is very crucial to have a breach of the peace against identity crisis. In this regard the most important step is identity education. The identity education should be provided at educational institutions as well as in temporarily organized seminars (seminars should be accessible for general public). Identity education will not work till we present a difference between different cultures. Media censorship should also be there in order to lessen the possible damages of cultural war. Media should also spread the knowledge of values among the common men. And last but not least we all should play our part to improve our religious image at international level. In this connection we can spread the true essence of our religion which is peace.