An Analysis of Poetic Justice in Macbeth

An Analysis of Poetic Justice in Macbeth The play Macbeth written by William Shakespeare is a story about a man named Macbeth and his quest for power. In the beginning of the play, Macbeth is a brave and noble soldier, who is crowned as Thane of Cawdor by King Duncan. After becoming Thane of Cawdor he and Banquo come across three witches who give them each three predictions. The witches predict that Macbeth will become the Thane of Glamis, the thane of Cawdor and then King. At first these predictions mean nothing to Banquo and Macbeth, but then Macbeth starts thinking that if the witches were right about one prophecy, then it must be true that he will become King. This prophecy mixed with the influence of his wife, lead him to kill King Duncan. After Macbeth became King, Macduff and Banquo have suspicions that it was Macbeth who slayed Duncan. Macbeth kills Banquo and tries to kill Macduff to avoid being caught, unfortunately Macduff has already assembled an army to kill Macbeth. When the army reaches Macbeth, Macduff figh ts him and kills him. With Macbeth gone, Malcolm rightfully becomes King of Scotland. The conclusion of Macbeth contains a high degree of poetic justice because of the slaying of Macbeth, Macduff being the man to slay Macbeth, Malcolm becoming King of Scotland and Lady Macbeth committing suicide. In the beginning of the story we get a false impression of Macbeth, because we see him as a brave, loyal and trusted soldier. After he kills King Duncan, we see Macbeth as an evil, greedy and power-hungry. Macbeth continues his murderous ways when he kills Banquo and tries to kill Fleance so they couldnt be his successor as King. Then Macbeth kills Macduffs family, because he knows hat Macduff has a suspicion that he killed King Duncan. Macbeth is truly a murderer that has gotten away with everything he has done. Macbeth realizes that he has changed and cant go back: â€Å" I am in blood. Steppd in so far that should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go oer.† (3.4. 136-138). Poetic justice is established when Macbeth is slain, because he had killed many people, all of which were innocent and had done nothing wrong to Macbeth. He finally gets proper justice when Macduff kills him for his actions throughout the play. Macduff is the Thane of Fife and is one of the first people to suspect that Macbeth killed King Duncan. Macbeth is aware that Macduff suspects him as the murderer, so he sends out men to kill him. When Macbeths men get to Macduffs castle he is not there, but his family is and the men kill Macduffs family. Macduff learns that his family has been killed: â€Å" All my pretty ones? Did you say all? O hell-kite! All? What all my pretty chickens, and their dam at one fell swoop?† (4.3.216-218). This shows the love that Macduff had for his family and how sad he became when he knew he would never see them again. Poetic justice is established when Macduff slays Macbeth because he gets justice for what Macbeth did to his family by killing the man who made him lose his whole family which he cared for so much. Malcolm is the eldest son of king Duncan and the rightful heir to his throne. When King Duncan is killed, Malcolm was the next in line and should have became king, but instead he fled to England out of fear of being suspected as his fathers murderer. Since Malcolm and his younger brother Donalbain fled, there was no one to take the throne other than Macbeth. Poetic justice occurs when Malcolm becomes King of Scotland because he was supposed to be King since King Duncans death but instead Macbeth becomes king. Malcolm gets his poetic justice when he finally gets what he rightfully deserved since his father died. Lady Macbeth is the wife of Macbeth and is an influencing factor in Macbeths decision to kill King Duncan. Without her influence Macbeth may not have killed King Duncan. It was her influence that made her feel guilty, because she knew she was just as much a part of the murder as Macbeth was. This guilt leads her to start sleepwalking, where she attempts to wash blood off her hands during her sleep. Although the play never mentions why she committed suicide it is most likely that it was because she couldnt live with the guilt she felt. Poetic justice occurs when Lady Macbeth commits suicide because she was a big part of the murder of King Duncan and gets what she deserved when she kills herself because of her own guilt. She deserved to die because of what she did to influence Macbeth into killing King Duncan. In conclusion, the ending of the play Macbeth provides a high degree o Poetic Justice as a result of

The Internet as a Learning Tool Essay -- Technology Web Essays

The Internet as a Learning Tool The Internet has a universal appeal for most people. We (in the United States) have become dependant on it for our daily routines. We shop, send mail, read the news, look up movie reviews, etc., using the Internet. We depend on this service, because we have told ourselves that "It" has made our lives easier. We advocate the use of similar technologies within the classroom, because we are convinced that the use of computers and having access to the Internet is the best way to educate our children so they can have an equal chance to reach their potential and accomplish their goals. It is true that the Internet is a great source of information. Its value as a resource is immeasurable. Unfortunately, to get this benefit we have to pay a price. In some cases this comes as loss of privacy. The Internet and the digital world are a part of the public sphere; therefore, our speech has to be measured and revised to be appropriate for this realm causing our free speech to be limited. Access to the Internet is also restricted to a certain group of people. One has to own a computer, or have access to one to be able to make use of its benefits. Internet access is uneven, therefore unfair. The other potential problem with the Internet is the access that people with shady intents or with low morality have to it. Anyone with the means to a computer can be online with our innocent children. Are their intents innocent also? In the realm of education, I think that the Internet can be a great resource for information. Research can be easily planned and implemented for the benefit of both students and educators. Unfortunately, this brings us back to the issue of limited access. Some students are more readily... ...ose to a multimedia / interactive classroom as we think we are. The school district (LAUSD) has spent several millions on purchasing computers and hooking them up to the Internet. The emphasis is on acquiring technology instead of implementing it. I still think that the novelty of computers and its tremendous appeal to students of all ages should be utilized to teach. Works Cited "Fast, Easy and FREE Webpages." http://www.webspawner.com/ (1 Nov. 2001). "How to Publish Web Pages." http://itsweb.hartford.edu (1 Nov. 2001). "How to Publish Web Pages to an Internet Server." http://www.surfwise.com/support/publish.htm (1 Nov. 2001). "Personal Publishing." http://www.utexas.edu/ (1 Nov. 2001). "Publishing Your Page for Free." http://home.san.rr.com/artbytes/publish.htm (1 Nov. 2001). "Yahoo! GeoCities." http://geocities.yahoo.com (1 Nov. 2001).

Democracy Is the Best Form of Government

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.The term originates from the Greek (demokratia) â€Å"rule of the people†,[1] which was coined from (demos) â€Å"people† and (kratos) â€Å"power† in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to â€Å"rule of an elite. † The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is h eld by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[2] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. 3] Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy.The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions Definition While there is no universally accepted definition of â€Å"democracy,†[5] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. [6] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. [7][8] One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i. e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality. 9] The term â€Å"democracy† is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. [citation needed] In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (while maintaining judicial independence). citation needed] In other cases, â€Å"democracy† is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term â€Å"democracy† is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private orga nizations. Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. [by whom? ] Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the â€Å"tyranny of the majority† in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an â€Å"ideal† representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[10] and procedurally. 11] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests. [12][13] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of eligible voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. [14] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the eligible voters, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is d efined s a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. [15] While democracy is often equated with the republican form of government, the term â€Å"republic† classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. Democracy is the best form of government. Yes because†¦ Freedom Democratic states nearly always have freer people than autocratic states. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like.They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. In particular they are free to criticise their own government. Represents the people The biggest virtue of Democracy is that it is government by the people for the people. The government represents the views of the people who elect them and can throw them out if the government does things that the people do not like. Unlike other forms of g overnment democracy is about the little man, everyone rather than the elite that are often disconnected from how everyone else lives their lives.Better governance due to transparency Democracy is as much about having checks and balances to the executive and having transparency of decision-making as it is about elections and the populace throwing governments out of power. In a democracy the parliament, the media and sometimes the judiciary all keep an eye on the executive and what is being done with the people’s money. They are therefore able to see if the executive is doing things that are detrimental to the country, are immoral, or even illegal. This can then be brought to a halt.Even where such actions are not visible on the surface there are separate institutions that have the power to investigate the executive and watch any ‘secret’ deals or actions that are going on away from public view. Respect of Human Rights Democracy as much it is understood, is the gov ernment of the people, by the people and for the people. If democracy is put at it appropriate performance, then, all facet of human rights is respected. The citizens would have the rights to exercise freedom of speech concerning the well-being of the populace in areas of the economy, education, health, infrastructural development, etc.Promotes Human Rights As much as Democracy is understood, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The ability of the people to have a voice in the running of the State, in the economy, health, education, infrastructural development, etc creates a bit-balanced environment for governance to thrive; this can only be achieved in a democratic governance. This is not the case. The most developed and richest countries are all democracies.While they may well have been developing their democracies during their initial industrialisation democracy and the freedom it brings is increasingly necessary for economic growth once the country has moved to being mostly dependent upon services rather than manufacturing or natural resource exploitation for economic growth. Once this occurs then creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology, creative arts, research and development etc.Democracy is the best form of government. No because†¦ Freedom Except for the freedom to choose the government there is no reason why people cannot be as free under an autocracy as in a democracy. Represents the people Democracy does not do very well at representing the people. In first past the post systems a government may not even have the support of a majority of those who voted not even including that many will not have votes and many more will not have the vote. This means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party gets in to government.Once they are there they are rarely rep resentative of the people as they have several years to do what they like. Yes they need to think about re-election but that simply means they need to do more that the people like than the people dislike (or else have a good advertising campaign). Better governance due to transparency While this is mostly found in democracy it is not something that has to be exclusive to democracies. Autocracies can potentially be transparent and have checks and balances they however often do not simply because an autocracy often has the time, and the willingness to use force to prevent these from occurring.Economic growth Autocracies are better at big projects, they can get things done and as such they are likely to be better at creating economic growth if they have the will. In an autocracy there are not the avenues for dissent that can block building projects, the police or troops can be used to clear protests that in the west would slow down large infrastructure projects. As a consequence of thi s all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy.Also the resource base of the country can be accessed faster (no pesky environmentalists preventing drilling and mining! ) and used more efficiently. Increasingly about money In some countries democracy seems to be increasingly about money. The U. S. is the obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and glitzy advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy should be about and it discourages other countries from moving along the path to democracy. Indeed it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U. S. A. ecomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. The 2008 campaign for the White House cost $1. 6 billion and the whole 2008 election including senate and house of representatives races cost $5. 3 billion. Autocracies obviously avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections. Is democracy the best form of government? Disagree : By Richard What if someone was in power who cared about the people, stood for the people, was in touch with the people and was not corrupted by the power that Dictatorship brought him.Yes, it seems unlikely but what if? We could have the ability to do more, faster with less red tape, paperwork, and continual discussion (as with a dictatorship) coupled with the freedoms of democracy. The problem is the people always believe the mob (majority) to be right. The truth is people are easily manipulated when in a crowd or together as a majority on an issue. It takes but one person to convince 10 000 that his conviction is the right one. Nevermind what the minority of free thinkers, academics, intellectuals, or revolutionaries have to say or have warned against. Political Ideology is not the problem.Humans are. W e are self-righteous, greedy, self-serving, destructive, and worst of all manipulative. People always point me to the selfless acts of others they have witnessed in order to prove me wrong on my previous statement. But the fact is these selfless people are in the tiny minority, or as with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, already have 10 houses, 4 cars, 2 security guards and a 10 mil bank account. â€Å"Giving† to the poor doesn't detract from their riches as they resupply their wealth with shares bought and sold or actually working. Thus, they aren't losing wealth. They simply aren't gaining more.We need the minority just as much as we need the majority. That minority of free thinkers, academics, intellectuals, and revolutionaries are the ones that changed the world. They brought us medicine, computers, a better understanding of science and space, but most important of all a curiosity for knowledge. Democracy should protect the rights of the minority more often than it does. We r ely too much on what the mob thinks, when in actual fact they don't think. They just regurgitate the drivel fed to them by some sob who knows how to manipulate the mob for his own profit. And that is the biggest problem facing democracy.How do you overcome the this human condition where if we are in large groups, emotion replaces logical thought? Disagree : By Prashanth I think there are better forms of government other than democracy. Dictatorship is not completely bad neither is democracy completely good. Consider this form of government– Instead of having bulky political parties why not have leaders of parties etc stand as candidates for the post of President/Prime Minister. The people can directly vote for them. Better still we could invite applications for this post from the citizens. Based on screening them for leadership track record,no criminal cases etc. e could select the top 5 or 10 most eligible candidates. People can select the candidate who is most popular/likab le for 5 years. He could then select experts from different sectors as ministers. He could hand pick distinguished people from different sectors as expert advisory group who could debate/discuss proposed laws. He can hand pick worthy local people for mayor position in cities/villages who should interact directly with people and pass immediate orders to solve their problems. He should have a citizens forum where people directly give ideas to the Prime Minister/President.The judiciary to oversee the constitutional validity of laws passed,Election Commission,Constitution and an ombudsman to check corruption etc all of them will be there. This form of government will cut flab,be efficient and agile. It will eliminate unworthy but popular people from getting elected. Also the people debating will be experts in their field. There is greater likelihood of better decisions. As it is today the party leaders only call the shots. Then why not have worthy leaders directly elected by the people. These leaders will keep a balance between expert opinion,constitutional provisions and public opinion.

Ted Kennedy Essays - Demographics Of The United States, Demography

Ted Kennedy Essays - Demographics Of The United States, Demography Prof Lauren Conj Comm 301 15 November 2015 Fifty years ago today, Ted Kennedy began changing the face of the United States by ushering the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act through Congress. That legislation resulted in the fundamental transformation of the demographic, economic, social, and political landscape of nation, exactly the opposite of what its supporters promised. The Kennedy immigration law abolished the national origins quota system, which had favored immigrants from nations with a similar heritage to our own, and opened up American immigration visas to the entire world. While about nine in ten of the immigrants who came to the United States during the 19th and 20th century hailed from Europe, the 1965 law inverted that figure. Today about 9 out of every 10 new immigrants brought into the country on green cards come from Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle East. The size of the numbers also grew exponentially as well. According to Pew Research Center, 59 million immigrants entered the United States following the Acts passage. Including their children, that added 72 million new residents to the U.S. population. In 1965, according to Pew, the country was 84 percent white, 11 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic and less than 1 percent Asian. In 2015, as a result of Kennedys immigration law, the country is now 62 percent white, 12 percent black, 18 percent Hispanic and 6 percent Asian.