Justice is a theme of all great literature Essay Example for Free

Justice is a theme of all great literature Essay Justice comes from actions and decisions being balanced, in that when someone does a good thing, they are rewarded, and when they do something bad, they are punished. It is the gods primary role to hand out justice and make sure everybody is treated fairly. This theme appears immediately in the Odyssey, as Zeus is considering the story of Aegisthus, who courted Agamemnons wife and then killed Agamemnon. Aegisthus was killed for this treacherous act. This story of justice shows us instantly that the Odyssey will be strongly structured around it. May all who act as he did share his fate! says Athene. This shows how openly the gods in the Odyssey despised the works of those who went against the will of the gods. Both Nestor and Menelaus repeat this story of Aegisthus, and as god fearing men, they know how important it is to stay on their right side because they know what happens as a result of an imbalance in terms of justice. The Aeneid opens however and were told that the poem is based on the founding of Rome and the main string of justice seems to be coming from one scorned goddess, who simply doesnt want her favourite city to be destroyed. The balance she tries to restore is simply an act of revenge rather than actual justice, and rather than convincing the other gods its the right thing to do, she simply bribes Aeolus. Justice is however looked upon a little while later as Venus goes to Jupiter and asks why the Trojans are being made to suffer after doing nothing wrong. Jupiter tells her not to fear as justice will be done and Rome will be founded. Such behaviour seems to recur constantly throughout the Aeneid. For example, in book 8 we learn of the betrayal that a Tuscan tribe suffered at the hands of Mezentius, and in book 9 he continues his evil ways killing Trojans. The Gods have decided to stay out of the battle and so the following events have nothing to do with the justice that is familiar in epic poems. Both Mezentius and his son Lausus are killed, by Aeneid. I see these deaths as acts of revenge rather than justice, although Lausus death is more deserving. The death of his son is Mezentius true punishment. I see these deaths as acts of revenge because Mezentius tried to kill Aeneid, as well as all the other innocent people and the treachery he brought upon the aforementioned Tuscan tribe, and so Aeneas kills them. The fact that the innocent Lausus dies shows that the justice portrayed in the Aeneid is much more malicious, and it doesnt just affect the culprit. Theres also the case of the unfortunate people in the underworld that must wait 100 years to cross the river, through no fault of their own. Justice really does seem obscure in the Aeneid. Another instance of this is when the people of Carthage feel Didos death was just, simply because she fell in love with the wrong man, and through no fault of her own. I believe Turnus death to be the best example of the incomprehensible justice served in the Aeneid. His justice only prevails once they see fit, once it fits in with their plans. In the end, it becomes obvious that while justice is a powerful motivator and regulator in the lives of mortals, it is the will of the immortals that truly controls their lives, and their disfigured system of justice On the other hand, there are moments when actual justice is served. Examples include the groups beyond the river in the underworld and the story of Hercules and the giant for example. He goes to extreme lengths to kill the giant for all the robbery and murder hes committed, and its just that Hercules puts a stop to it, even though its brought about by someone who isnt quite immortal, and so possibly not what the gods perceive as justice. Although weve already established that the gods perspective is fairly warped in the Aeneid. The other case of actual justice involves king Minos, who spends eternity hearing the cases of people, unjustly executed, and finally getting the plea their cases. They are finally being treated fairly, even if it is beyond life. In the Odyssey however, deaths and misfortunes seem to come about through the idea of justice, and nothing else- no malicious or unfair punishments seem to prevail i. e. there seems to be a point behind them, rather than them just being malicious acts of immortals. For example, Zeus becomes angered at Odysseus because his men eat the sun gods cattle, despite being warned not to; however he doesnt let Odysseus die, because the sun god only asks that the crew be punished, because after all, Odysseus did warn them. However he does unavoidably get caught in the cross fire and this is how he winds up on Calypsos island in the first place. Another example is Poseidon. He makes Odysseus aqua adventures a nightmare because he impairs Poseidons son Polyphemus vision, which goes against the rules of Xenia really. It is of course, Odysseus own fault because he becomes arrogant about what he did to Polyphemus, by telling him his name, after hes left. Therefore its just and fair to punish him. Even though hes such a great hero, he does a wrong act and is punished as any other man would be. Then of course, there is the case of the suitors; the epic conclusion to the Odyssey. Odysseus finally returns to find all the suitors and some of the maids running riot in his home, having raunchy sex, eating all the food, and drinking away his wealth. Odysseus is of course a bit bothered by this, so he decides, and Athene, who borrows Mentors image again, agrees that he, Telemachus and a couple of close friends will pick up their weapons and launch them through any part of the suitors they see fit. The fact that Athene helps proves that the act is just. Rarely do gods help out in a way that we can perceive as just in the Aeneid, because most of the time, the punishments are just vicious or over-exaggerated. So anyway, Telemachus sees to it that the ill-mannered maids are hung until they stop twitching, and Odysseus destroys all the suitors so that he and Penelope can live happily ever after, as they justly deserve. By the end of homers poem, everyone has been served the justice theyve earned, both good and bad. I think its fair to say that justice is very important in both plays, but as a modern day reader, its easier to understand the justice in the Odyssey because at times, the events in the Aeneid seem so obscure.

Customer relationships marketing Essay -- essays research papers

Literature Review The Evolving Sales and Marketing Landscape Marketing and business development professionals are confronting a rapidly different and changing business landscape. The traditional business model that was once the standard is now being transformed due to technology drivers that make advanced marketing and sales capabilities possible. The business model of yesterday supported mass marketing, mass production, and standardized cookie-cutter products and services. Enterprises will have fall behind the competition if they continue to rely and operate on this substandard model. Today, companies are re-engineering their operations and investing in enhanced IT infrastructures, which enable them to provide customized, personalized, information-rich products and services. The new objective for marketers and business developers involves understanding the needs of their clients and the markets that they serve. This new focus on providing customer value is redefining business proce sses. Professionals, who understand and anticipate this shift, are positioning themselves ahead of the competition. The Impact of Technology Enabled Business Processes There is no denying the effect that technology has had on the way we conduct business. In recent years, technology has begun to play a significantly larger role in all aspects of business, including sales and marketing. Business processes must be re-engineered to incorporate a pro-active strategy for using information and IT to build a competitive advantage over other organizations. In many instances, the functionality provided by sales and marketing technology only automates current processes. Therefore, it is imperative that processes are clearly defined and well proven. Automating a poorly understood or followed process usually results in failure. Technology must be used as an enabler to support an already sound sales and marketing strategy. Beyond automating sales and marketing capabilities, technology is now desi gned to provide professionals with a wealth of information about their company’s clients and the markets that they serve. Companies are now able to collect data about their customers that when analyzed and utilized properly, can result in a competitive advantage. Online shopping is a prime example. If a customer makes a purchase, then the transaction is completed and revenue is generated. However, if a... ...tomer profile based on data received from web registrations, surveys, as well as historical interactions. Information from client transactions can be used to determine customer preferences, needs, as well as activities or events the client has attended. This information can be used when making decisions on how to best optimize sales with that client in the future. The Architectural Components of a CRM To understand the structure of a CRM solution one must consider the business model it is designed to support. As mentioned previously, marketing and sales departments are increasingly relying on relationship marketing as a means to more effectively acquire and retain clients. In short, in order to say competitive, companies must operate based on a customer-centric business model. The Gartner Group predicts there is an 80% probability that by 2001, 70 percent of marketing applications will be entirely redesigned to focus on customers instead of products and redeployed to take advanta ge of emerging technologies. CRMs are at the forefront of emerging sales and marketing technologies, but there are many tools that contribute to this technologies vast functionality. Word Count: 2020

Analysis of the Argument Culture Essay

â€Å"The Argument Culture† is a persuasive essay written by Professor Deborah Tannen. As a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, Tannen experience in language leads her to write many books in this field. Tannen uses â€Å"The Argument Culture† essay to persuade her audience that this society’s way of looking at debate encourages an â€Å"adversarial frame of mind† (Tannen, 305). Three of Tannen’s main points include; polarized views in the news, the use of â€Å"war metaphors’ by media to catch the readers eye, and even in the language mankind uses in everyday life. Tannen’s essay also includes different ways to look at these each of these situations that may help reduce the debate language that this society uses every day. The first example Tannen shares is how this society assumes the best way to solve anything is through debate. Tannen explains, this society believes â€Å"the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as ‘both sides’ [of the story]’ (305). In some circumstances these interviews turn into very heated debates with both sides yelling over the other to make their point heard. These heated debates only divides the audience into ‘sides’ and closes minds to the facts on the other side of the debate. Most Americans do not have these strong opposing viewpoints on an issue until they are influenced by the debates in the news. Instead, Tannen encourages newscasters to ask â€Å"What are the other ‘sides’?† (308) Asking this question will get them thinking about all of the different points of view they can report on. Then the newscasters can invite guests from multiple differing viewpoints to discuss the issue. Having a group discussion with differing less extreme viewpoints can help defuse opposition, encouraging a discussion format instead of debating the issues at hand. The audience can then develop their own opinion on the issues at hand. The next example Tannen shares is how the media uses war metaphors to â€Å"shape our thinking.† A few of these war metaphors are: â€Å"the war on drugs, the war on cancer, the battle of the sexes† (305). These metaphors are used to catch the attention of the reader and to get the reader to pick a side. This is not always a good thing. Sometimes these metaphors are a great way to get support; such as â€Å"the war on cancer,† because the more people that help fight this war the better chance cancer can be defeated. The media needs to decide to use war metaphors where it will encourage support insteadof encouraging debate. An example of a war metaphor that encourages debate is â€Å"the battle of the sexes,† because this metaphor only pits the sexes against each other. There is enough struggle for equality between the sexes without the so called ‘battle.’ Men and women should be working together to reach their goals instead of competing against each other to reach their own goal. . A walk down the magazine isle at any store will prove Tannen’s point that â€Å"nearly everything is framed as a battle or game in which winning or losing is the main concern† (305). Another important point Tannen brings up is â€Å"the power of words to shape perception† (306). It is amazing how easy it is to change how things are perceived by just changing one word in a sentence. The example she shares to prove this point is from an experiment Psychologists Elisabeth Loftus and John Palmer performed. In the experiment two groups of people watch the same movie of a car accident. The two groups are asked essentially the same question except one sentence uses the word â€Å"bumped† and the other uses â€Å"smashed† to describe the collision. Tannen explains â€Å"those who read the question with ‘smashed’ tended to remember that the cars were going faster† (306). Americans need to be aware and on the lookout for these circumstances because that one word can mean the difference between dialogue and debate. Everyone needs to understand how easily language can change a person’s perception of a situation because, as Tannen shares, â€Å"[language] invisibly molds our way of thinking about people, actions and the world around us† (306). In â€Å"The Argument Culture† essay Tannen tries to open eyes to the â€Å"American tradition† of debate. This is very important because â€Å"the argument culture pervades every aspect of [American’s] lives today† (305). As Tannen’s first main point informs the reader, the argument culture is especially evident when watching the nightly news and being bombarded by debate. Through Tannen’s examples of war metaphors she proves that the media uses these metaphors to encourage disputes. War metaphors can also be found in American’s everyday conversations; it is particularly used to emphasis or even exaggerate a point in a conversation. This also shows how the language that is used in describing a situation changes one’s perception of the said situation. Tannen’s essay should be read by everyone living in this argument culture so their eyes will be open to the â€Å"adversarial frame of mind† (305) that can be found in this society. Then maybe this â€Å"argument culture† can find creative â€Å"ways of resolving disputes and differences† (305) without debate. Works Cited Tannen, Deborah. â€Å"The Argument Culture.† The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers. Ed. Stephen Reid. 10th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2014. 305-09. Print.

A History of the Guillotine in Europe

The guillotine is one of European historys most bloody icons. Although designed with the best of intentions, this hugely recognizable machine soon became associated with events that have overshadowed both its heritage and its development: the French Revolution. Yet, despite such a high profile and chilling reputation, histories of la guillotine remain muddled, often differing on quite basic details. Learn about the events that brought the guillotine to prominence, and also the machines place in a broader history of decapitation which, as far as France is concerned, finished only recently. Pre-Guillotine Machines — the Halifax Gibbet Although older narratives may tell you that the guillotine was invented in the late 18th century, most recent accounts recognize that similar decapitation machines have a long history. The most famous, and possibly one of the earliest, was the Halifax Gibbet, a monolithic wooden structure which was supposedly created from two fifteen foot high uprights capped by a horizontal beam. The blade was an axe head, attached to the bottom of a four and a half foot wooden block that slid up and down via grooves in the uprights. This device was mounted on a large, square, platform which was itself four foot high. The Halifax Gibbet was certainly substantial, and may date from as early as 1066, although the first definite reference is from the 1280s. Executions took place in the towns Market Place on Saturdays, and the machine remained in use until April 30th, 1650. Pre-Guillotine Machines in Ireland Another early example is immortalized in the picture The execution of Murcod Ballagh near to Merton in Ireland 1307. As the title suggests, the victim was called Murcod Ballagh, and he was decapitated by equipment which looks remarkably similar to the later French guillotines. Another, unrelated, picture depicts the combination of a guillotine style machine and a traditional beheading. The victim is lying on a bench, with an axe head held above his neck by some sort of mechanism. The difference lies in the executioner, who is shown wielding a large hammer, ready to strike the mechanism and drive the blade down. If this device existed, it may have been an attempt to improve the accuracy of the impact. Use of Early Machines There were many other machines, including the Scottish Maiden — a wooden construction based directly on the Halifax Gibbet, dating from the mid 16th century — and the Italian Mannaia, which was famously used to execute Beatrice Cenci, a woman whose life is obscured by clouds of myth. Beheading was usually reserved for the wealthy or powerful as it was considered to be nobler, and certainly less painful, than other methods; the machines were similarly restricted. However, the Halifax Gibbet is an important, and often overlooked, exception, because it was used to execute anyone breaking the relevant laws, including the poor. Although these decapitation machines certainly existed — the Halifax Gibbet was alleged to have been only one out of a hundred similar devices in Yorkshire — they were generally localized, with a design and use unique to their region; the French guillotine was to be very different. Pre-Revolutionary Methods of French Execution Many methods of execution were used across France in the early 18th century, ranging from the painful, to the grotesque, bloody and painful. Hanging and burning were common, as were more imaginative methods, such as tying the victim to four horses and forcing these to gallop in different directions, a process that tore the individual apart. The rich or powerful could be beheaded with axe or sword, while many suffered the compilation of death and torture that comprised hanging, drawing and quartering. These methods had a twofold purpose: to punish the criminal  and to act as a warning for others; accordingly, the majority of executions took place in public. Opposition to these punishments was slowly growing, due mainly to the ideas and philosophies of the Enlightenment thinkers — people such as Voltaire and Locke — who argued for humanitarian methods of execution. One of these was Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin; however, it is unclear whether the doctor was an advocate of capital punishment, or someone who wanted it to be, ultimately, abolished. Dr. Guillotins Proposals The  French Revolution  began in 1789, when an attempt to relieve a financial crisis exploded very much in the faces of the monarchy. A meeting called an Estates General transformed into a National Assembly which seized control of the moral and practical power at the heart of France, a process which convulsed the country, re-shaping the countrys social, cultural and political makeup. The legal system was reviewed immediately. On October 10th 1789 — the second day of the debate about Frances penal code — Dr. Guillotin proposed six articles to the  new Legislative Assembly, one of which called for decapitation to become the sole method of execution in France. This was to be carried out by a simple machine, and involve no torture. Guillotin presented an etching that illustrated one possible device, resembling an ornate, but hollow, stone column with a falling blade, operated by an effete executioner cutting the suspension rope. The machine was also hidden from the vi ew of large crowds, according with Guillotins view that execution should be private and dignified. This suggestion was rejected; some accounts describe the Doctor being laughed, albeit nervously, out of the Assembly. Narratives often ignore the other five reforms: one asked for a nationwide standardisation in punishment, while others concerned the treatment of the criminals family, who were not to be harmed or discredited; property, which was not to be confiscated; and corpses, which were to be returned to the families. When Guillotin proposed his articles again on December 1st 1789, these five recommendations were accepted, but the beheading machine was, again, rejected. Growing Public Support The situation developed in 1791, when the Assembly agreed — after weeks of discussion — to retain the death penalty; they then began to discuss a more humane and egalitarian method of execution, as many of the previous techniques were felt to be too barbaric and unsuitable. Beheading was the preferred option, and the Assembly accepted a new, albeit repetitive, proposal by the Marquis Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, decreeing that Every person condemned to the death penalty shall have his head severed. Guillotins notion of a decapitation machine began to grow in popularity, even if the Doctor himself had abandoned it. Traditional methods like the sword or axe could prove messy and difficult, especially if the executioner missed or the prisoner struggled; a machine would not only be fast and reliable, but it would never tire. Frances main executioner, Charles-Henri Sanson, championed these final points. The First Guillotine Is Built The Assembly — working through Pierre-Louis Roederer, the Procureur gà ©nà ©ral — sought advice from Doctor Antoine Louis, the Secretary of the Academy of Surgery in France, and his design for a quick, painless, decapitation machine was given to Tobias Schmidt, a German Engineer. It is unclear whether Louis drew his inspiration from existing devices, or whether he designed from afresh. Schmidt built the  first guillotine  and tested it, initially on animals, but later on human corpses. It comprised two fourteen-foot uprights joined by a crossbar, whose internal edges were grooved and greased with tallow; the weighted blade was either straight, or curved like an axe. The system was operated via a rope and pulley, while the whole construction was mounted on a high platform. The final testing took place at a hospital in Bicà ªtre, where three carefully chosen corpses — those of strong, stocky men — were successfully beheaded. The first execution took place on April 25th, 1792, when a highwayman called Nicholas-Jacques Pelletier was killed. Further improvements were made, and an independent report to Roederer recommended a number of changes, including metal trays to collect blood; at some stage the famous angled blade was introduced and the high platform abandoned, replaced by a basic scaffold. The Guillotine Spreads Throughout France This improved machine was accepted by the Assembly, and copies were sent to each of the new territorial regions, named Departments. Pariss own was initially based at the place de  Carroussel, but the device was frequently moved. In the aftermath of Pelletiers execution the contraption became known as the Louisette or Louison, after Dr. Louis; however, this name was soon lost, and other titles emerged. At some stage, the machine became known as the  Guillotin, after Dr. Guillotin — whose main contribution had been a set of legal articles — and then finally la guillotine. It is also unclear precisely why, and when, the final e was added, but it probably developed out of attempts to rhyme Guillotin in poems and chants. Dr Guillotin himself wasnt very happy at being adopted as the name. The Machine Open to All The guillotine may have been similar in form and function to other, older, devices, but it broke new ground: an entire country officially, and unilaterally, adopted this decapitation machine for all of its executions. The same design was shipped out to all the regions, and each was operated in the same manner, under the same laws; there was supposed to be no local variation. Equally, the guillotine was designed to administer a fast and painless death to anyone, regardless of age, sex or wealth, an embodiment of such concepts as equality and humanity. Before the French Assemblys 1791 decree beheading was usually reserved for the rich or powerful, and it continued to be in other parts of Europe; however, Frances guillotine was available to all. The Guillotine Is Quickly Adopted Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the guillotines history is the sheer speed and scale of its adoption and use. Born out of a discussion in 1789 that had actually considered banning the death penalty, the machine had been used to kill over 15,000 people by the Revolutions close in 1799, despite not being fully invented until the middle of 1792. Indeed, by 1795, only a year and a half after its first use, the guillotine had decapitated over a thousand people in Paris alone. Timing certainly played a part, because the machine was introduced across France only months before a bloody new period in the revolution: The Terror. The Terror In 1793, political events caused a new governmental body to be introduced: The  Committee of Public Safety. This was supposed to work quickly and effectively, protecting the Republic from enemies and solving problems with the necessary force; in practice, it became a dictatorship run by Robespierre. The committee demanded the arrest and execution of anyone who either by their conduct, their contacts, their words or their writings, showed themselves to be supporters of tyranny, of federalism, or to be enemies of liberty (Doyle, The  Oxford History of the French Revolution, Oxford, 1989 p.251). This loose definition could cover almost everyone, and during the years 1793-4 thousands were sent to the guillotine. It is important to remember that, of the many who perished during the terror, most were not guillotined. Some were shot, others drowned, while in Lyon, on the 4 to the 8th of December 1793, people were lined up in front of open graves and shredded by grape-shot from cannons. Despite this, the guillotine became synonymous with the period, transforming into a social and political symbol of equality, death and the Revolution. The Guillotine Passes Into Culture It is easy to see why the quick, methodical, movement of the machine should have transfixed both France and Europe. Every execution involved a fountain of blood from the victims neck, and the sheer number of people being beheaded could create red pools, if not actual flowing streams. Where executioners once prided themselves on their skill, speed now became the focus; 53 people were executed by the Halifax Gibbet between 1541 and 1650, but some guillotines exceeded that total in a single day. The gruesome images coupled easily with morbid humour, and the machine became a cultural icon affecting fashion, literature, and even childrens toys. After the Terror, the Victims Ball became fashionable: only relatives of the executed could attend, and these guests dressed with their hair up and their necks exposed, mimicking the condemned. For all the fear and bloodshed of the Revolution, the guillotine doesnt appear to have been hated or reviled, indeed, the contemporary nicknames, things like the national razor, the widow, and Madame Guillotine seem to be more accepting than hostile. Some sections of society even referred, although probably largely in jest, to a  Saint Guillotine  who would save them from tyranny. It is, perhaps, crucial that the device was never associated wholly with any one single group, and that Robespierre himself was guillotined, enabling the machine to rise above petty party politics, and establish itself as an arbiter of some higher justice. Had the guillotine been seen as the tool of a group who became hated, then the guillotine might have been rejected, but by staying almost neutral it lasted, and became its own thing. Was the Guillotine to Blame? Historians have debated whether The Terror would have been possible without the guillotine, and its widespread reputation as a humane, advanced, and altogether revolutionary piece of equipment. Although water and gunpowder laid behind much of the slaughter, the guillotine was a focal point: did the population accept this new, clinical, and merciless machine as their own, welcoming its common standards when they might have balked at mass hangings and separate, weapon based, beheadings? Given the size and death toll of other European incidents within the same decade, this might be unlikely; but whatever the situation, la guillotine had become known across Europe within only a few years of its invention. Post-Revolutionary Use The history of the guillotine does not end with the French Revolution. Many other countries adopted the machine, including Belgium, Greece, Switzerland, Sweden and some German states; French colonialism also helped to export the device abroad. Indeed, France continued to use, and improve upon, the guillotine for at least another century. Leon Berger, a carpenter and executioners assistant, made a number of refinements in the early 1870s. These included springs to cushion the falling parts (presumably repeated use of the earlier design could damage the infrastructure), as well as a new release mechanism. The Berger design became the new standard for all French guillotines. A further, but very  short lived,  change  occurred under the executioner Nicolas Roch in the late 19th century; he included a board at the top to cover the blade, hiding it from an approaching victim. Rochs successor had the screen swiftly removed. Public executions continued in France until 1939, when Eugene Weidmann became the last open-air victim. It had thus taken nearly one hundred and fifty years for the practice to comply with Guillotins original wishes, and be hidden from the public eye. Although the machines use had gradually fallen after the revolution, executions in Hitlers Europe rose to a level that neared, if not exceeded, that of The Terror. The last State use of the guillotine in France occurred on September 10th  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹1977,  when Hamida Djandoubi was executed; there should have been another in 1981, but the intended victim, Philippe Maurice, was granted clemency. The death penalty was abolished in France that same year. The  Infamy of the Guillotine There have been many methods of execution used in Europe, including the mainstay of hanging and the more recent firing squad, but none have quite the lasting reputation or imagery as the guillotine, a machine which continues to provoke fascination. The guillotines creation is often blurred into the, almost immediate, period of its most famous use and the machine has become the most characteristic element of the French Revolution. Indeed, although the history of decapitation machines stretches back at least eight hundred years, often involving constructions that were almost identical to the guillotine, it is this later device which dominates. The guillotine is certainly evocative, presenting a chilling image entirely at odds with the original intention of a painless death. Dr. Guillotin Finally, and contrary to legend, Doctor Joseph Ignace Guillotin was not executed by his own machine; he lived until  1814,  and died of biological causes.