Comparing and contrasting Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Comparing and contrasting - Essay Example More specifically, the paper will focus on separation of powers, federalism, parliamentary sovereignty, bicameralism, bill of rights, heads of power, control of finances, and power of the electorate among others. One of the most crucial aspect of both the United States and Australian Constitution is Federalism. This aspect refers to the sharing of powers between the state and national governments. In the United States, state have existed for a long time. They were formed before the national government and it is their union that led to the creation of the federal government. Under the federal system of governance, the United States Constitution holds that the federal government has the power to oversee issues that affect America as a nation. Thus, national issues are dealt with by the federal government. The state governments only deal with issues within their jurisdiction. Under the constitution, the federal government has powers to make laws that affect the entire nation. However, the constitution limits these powers. For example, trading activities between states can be regulated by the federal government, but it has no powers to influence trade occurring within a state (Zines, 2008). The United States Constitution is similar to the Australian Constitution, which is also based on the federal system. Power is divided between the state and Federal government. The federation was formed in 1901. In Australia, there are six states. Since Australia is governed by the laws of the Commonwealth, the government is also referred as the Commonwealth government. The powers of the Federal government in Australia have been clearly indicated in Section 51 of the Australian Constitution. Most financial decisions, including those affecting the individual states, are made by the central government. Although the federal structure makes the United States Constitution similar to the Australian Constitution, there are differences in that the United States has more

Black Cat Essay Example for Free

Black Cat Essay In Poes The Black Cat, the cat acts as an instrument of justice. The story illustrates that the narrator tortures his pets. Moreover, he kills his wife and the black cat brutally. He tries his best to hide the dead body of his wife. But when the second cat screams and reveals the body to the police officers , it brought about justice to narrators wife and all those animals whom narrator had tortured. Thus the cat indirectly punishes the narrator by revealing the dead body of his wife to the corps. To begin with, the narrator is portrayed as an evil-doer in the story and he deserves punishment for his crimes. For example, the he begins to suffer violent mood swings under the influence of alcohol.He takes to mistreating not only other animals but also his wife. During this uncontrollable rage he spares only Pluto(the black cat). One night when Pluto bites his hand, he cuts out one of the cats eyes. This shows his vengeful behaviour. He keeps on committing wrong just for the sake of wrong. Then, one night he hangs the cat from a tree , where it dies.Furthermore,one day when narrator and his wife are visiting the cellar , the second cat gets under his feet and nearly trips him down the stairs . In a fury, the man grabs an axe and tries to kill the cat but is stopped by his wife. Enraged, he kills her with the axe instead. These actions of narrator throw light upon his merciless and cruel nature. Moreover , he tries to escape from punishment and hides the dead body. Thus, the action of the cat in the end of the story is completely justified. In conclusion, the second cat ultimately serves as the facilitator of justice when it reveals the corpses hiding place at the end of tale. Its initial appearance on the top of a hogstead of rum emphasizes its moral purpose.

Comercio Electrónico

Comercio Electrà ³nico Este trabajo hablara sobre el desenvolvimiento del Comercio Electrà ³nico evidencia en los tiempos actuales, que comprende un instrumento cuyo crecimiento es impresionante, sobre los cuales es necesario tomar control que resguarde el desarrollo de la actividad Comercial que allà ­ se efectà ºa. El interà ©s que surja y se establezcan parà ¡metros controladores en beneficio de quienes forman parte de la actividad; es decir, tanto demandantes como comerciantes de bienes y servicios, asà ­ como de los agentes recaudadores de impuestos a la actividad comercial quienes determinan como usuarios las necesidades reales han de tomarse en cuenta para orientar el diseà ±o de la plataforma tecnolà ³gica sobre la cual opera estas actividades destinadas al Comercio, aun cuando los fabricantes de las tecnologà ­as han dado muestras fehacientes del perfeccionamiento en cuanto operatividad; sin embargo, en la actualidad se ha incrementado en el ciberespacio (escenario de la actividad comerc ial), un gran nà ºmero de fraudes que van en detrimento de quienes operan comercialmente a travà ©s de este medio, aà ºn cuando el espacio de la operacià ³n es virtual, los delitos o fraudes que ocurren en à ©l son reales. DESARROLLO En la actualidad la informatizacià ³n se ha implantado en casi todos los paà ­ses. Tanto en la organizacià ³n y administracià ³n de empresas y administraciones pà ºblicas como en la investigacià ³n cientà ­fica, en la produccià ³n industrial o en el estudio, e incluso en el ocio, el uso de la informà ¡tica es en ocasiones indispensable y hasta conveniente. Sin embargo, junto a las incuestionables ventajas que presenta comienzan a surgir algunas facetas negativas, como por ejemplo, lo que ya se conoce como criminalidad informà ¡tica. El espectacular desarrollo de la tecnologà ­a informà ¡tica ha abierto las puertas a nuevas posibilidades de delincuencia antes impensables. La manipulacià ³n fraudulenta de los ordenadores con à ¡nimo de lucro, la destruccià ³n de programas o datos y el acceso y la utilizacià ³n indebida de la informacià ³n que puede afectar la esfera de la privacidad, son algunos de los procedimientos relacionados con el procesamiento electrà ³nico de datos mediante los cuales es posible obtener grandes beneficios econà ³micos o causar importantes daà ±os materiales o morales. Pero no sà ³lo la cuantà ­a de los perjuicios asà ­ ocasionados es a menudo infinitamente superior a la que es usual en la delincuencia tradicional, sino que tambià ©n son mucho mà ¡s elevadas las posibilidades que no lleguen a descubrirse. Se trata de una delincuencia de especialistas capaces muchas veces de borrar toda huella de los hechos. En este sentido, la informà ¡tica puede ser el objeto del ataque o el medio para cometer otros delitos. La informà ¡tica reà ºne unas caracterà ­sticas que la convierten en un medio idà ³neo para la comisià ³n de muy distintas modalidades delictivas, en especial de carà ¡cter patrimonial (estafas, apropiaciones indebidas, etc.). La idoneidad proviene, bà ¡sicamente, de la gran cantidad de datos que se acumulan, con la consiguiente facilidad de acceso a ellos y la relativamente fà ¡cil manipulacià ³n de esos datos. La importancia reciente de los sistemas de datos, por su gran incidencia en la marcha de las empresas, tanto pà ºblicas como privadas, los ha transformado en un objeto cuyo ataque provoca un perjuicio enorme, que va mucho mà ¡s allà ¡ del valor material de los objetos destruidos. A ello se une que estos ataques son relativamente fà ¡ciles de realizar, con resultados altamente satisfactorios y al mismo tiempo procuran a los autores una probabilidad bastante alta de alcanzar los objetivos sin ser descubiertos. El estudio de los distintos mà ©todos de destruccià ³n y/o violacià ³n del hardware y el software es necesario en orden a determinar cuà ¡l serà ¡ la direccià ³n que deberà ¡ seguir la proteccià ³n jurà ­dica de los sistemas informà ¡ticos, ya que sà ³lo conociendo el mecanismo de estos mà ©todos es posible encontrar las similitudes y diferencias que existen entre ellos. De este modo se pueden conocer los problemas que es necesario soslayar para conseguir una proteccià ³n jurà ­dica eficaz sin caer en la casuà ­stica. En consecuencia, la legislacià ³n sobre proteccià ³n de los sistemas informà ¡ticos ha de perseguir acercarse lo mà ¡s posible a los distintos medios de proteccià ³n ya existentes, creando una nueva regulacià ³n sà ³lo en aquellos aspectos en los que, en base a las peculiaridades del objeto de proteccià ³n, sea imprescindible. Si se tiene en cuenta que los sistemas informà ¡ticos, pueden entregar datos e informaciones sobre miles de personas, naturales y jurà ­dicas, en aspectos tan fundamentales para el normal desarrollo y funcionamiento de diversas actividades como bancarias, financieras, tributarias, provisionales y de identificacià ³n de las personas. Y si a ello se agrega que existen Bancos de Datos, empresas o entidades dedicadas a proporcionar, si se desea, cualquier informacià ³n, sea de carà ¡cter personal o sobre materias de las mà ¡s diversas disciplinas a un Estado o particulares; se comprenderà ¡ que està ¡n en juego o podrà ­an llegar a estarlo de modo dramà ¡tico, algunos valores colectivos y los consiguientes bienes jurà ­dicos que el ordenamiento jurà ­dico-institucional debe proteger. No es la amenaza potencial de la computadora sobre el individuo lo que provoca desvelo, sino la utilizacià ³n real por el hombre de los sistemas de informacià ³n con fines de espionaje. No son los grandes sistemas de informacià ³n los que afectan la vida privada sino la manipulacià ³n o el consentimiento de ello, por parte de individuos poco conscientes e irresponsables de los datos que dichos sistemas contienen. La humanidad no esta frente al peligro de la informà ¡tica sino frente a la posibilidad real de que individuos o grupos sin escrà ºpulos, con aspiraciones de obtener el poder que la informacià ³n puede conferirles, la utilicen para satisfacer sus propios intereses, a expensas de las libertades individuales y en detrimento de las personas. Asimismo, la amenaza futura serà ¡ directamente proporcional a los adelantos de las tecnologà ­as informà ¡ticas. La proteccià ³n de los sistemas informà ¡ticos puede abordarse tanto desde una perspectiva penal como de una perspectiva civil o comercial, e incluso de derecho administrativo. Estas distintas medidas de proteccià ³n no tienen porque ser excluyentes unas de otras, sino que, por el contrario, à ©stas deben estar estrechamente vinculadas. Por eso, dadas las caracterà ­sticas de esta problemà ¡tica sà ³lo a travà ©s de una proteccià ³n global, desde los distintos sectores del ordenamiento jurà ­dico, es posible alcanzar una cierta eficacia en la defensa de los ataques a los sistemas informà ¡ticos. Objetivo General: Acceder a un conjunto de nociones, conceptos e informaciones diversas, que permita la exploracià ³n de la realidad del comportamiento de la actividad comercial dentro de la Red, midiendo el efecto que tal actividad ejerce en la sociedad y en forma individual y en especial, cuando son objeto de fraudes en la realizacià ³n de las actividades; a travà ©s de una metodologà ­a seleccionada y asà ­ entender los orà ­genes, causa y consecuencias del fraude electrà ³nico, y los delitos y abusos que ocurren en la Internet. Objetivos: Determinar las condiciones necesarias para el establecimiento de la actividad comercial en red, que permita una actividad segura, sin riesgos desde el punto de vista jurà ­dico. Conocer las variables dependientes e interdependientes que inciden en el proceso de la comercializacià ³n on line, que permita de deteccià ³n y lucha contra los delitos electrà ³nicos. Conocer el impacto que tienen en la sociedad y en el individuo el manejo y la ejecucià ³n de actividades de tipo comercial a travà ©s de la red. Evaluar y entender la tecnologà ­a utilizada en la plataforma operativa, software y hardware como medio de ejecucià ³n, para la comprensià ³n del delito electrà ³nico. CONCLUSION Despues de haber comprender las particularidades reales del problema, su entorno, dimensià ³n, asà ­ como el conocimiento holà ­stico de los demà ¡s elementos evidenciados en el marco teà ³rico concluir con aproximacià ³n a un tema de gran interà ©s y de preocupacià ³n, se puede seà ±alar que dado el carà ¡cter transnacional de los delitos informà ¡tico cometidos esto implica actividades criminales que no se contemplan en las figuras tradicionales como robos, hurtos, falsificaciones, estafa, sabotaje, etc. Sin embargo, debe destacarse que el uso de las tà ©cnicas informà ¡ticas ha creado nuevas posibilidades del uso indebido de computadoras lo que ha propiciado a su vez la necesidad de regulacià ³n por parte del derecho. Universidad Iberoamericana UNIBE Administracià ³n de empresas Jonathan Sanchez Mat. 10-0476 Introduccion a la TIC 2ndo Parcial Jonathan Antonio Sanchez Pena Primera terraza del arroyo num. 37, cuesta Hermosa 2 arroyo hondo. Tel. 809-567-4704, Cel. 809-917-1231 Personal: Fecha de nac: 24 de oct del 1990 Nacionalidad: Dominicana Cedula: 001-1861213-4 Educacion: Colegio San Judas Tadeo Universidad Unibe Administracion de empresas 2do semestre Idiomas: Espanol Ingles Experiencia Laboral: Hotel Jaragua Campamento Comatillo/ monitor Plaza Lama/ vendedor Referencias: Piroska Ordehi: 809.986.4556 Gianfranco Torino: 809-532-6161 INDICE Pag.1.. Introduccion Pag.2-5 . Desarrollo Pag. 6 .. Conclusion Pag.7 .. Internetgrafia INTERNETGRAFIA http://www.myownbusiness.org/espanol/s9/ http://www.seic.gov.do/baseConocimiento/TLCEEUU%20DRCAFTA/Texto%20del%20Tratado%20en%20Espaà ±ol/Capà ­tulo%2014.%20Comercio%20Electrà ³nico/DR-CAFTA%20Capà ­tulo%2014.%20Comercio%20Electrà ³nico.pdf

Imagery In Othello :: essays research papers

The function of imagery in the mid-sixteenth century play Othello by William Shakespeare is to aid characterisation and define meaning in the play. The antagonist Iago is defined through many different images, Some being the use of poison and soporifics, sleeping agents, to show his true evil and sadistic nature. Othello’s character is also shaped by much imagery such as the animalistic, black and white, and horse images which indicates his lustful, sexual nature. Characterisation of women is heavily dictated by imagery used to show the patriarchal gender system of the time. Some of this imagery is that of hobbyhorses and the like showing that they, Desdemona and Emelia, were nothing better than common whores. Othello’s view at the start of the play is contradicting of these patriarchal views with Desdemona and Othellos’ true love overcoming these stereotypes and we are told this through imagery of fair warriors and the like. The power of deceit is shown also th rough imagery of spiders and webs, uniforms and other such images. Also the power of jealousy is well defined by imagery. The handkerchief, green-eyed monster and cuckolding imagery are prominent in defining this theme. The satanic character of Iago is depicted well though different types or imagery. His sadist intend is depicted through suffocating imagery â€Å"I’ll pour pestilence into his(Othello’s) ear† (II iii 356) says Iago in a soliloquy in as he is outlining his malicious intent and nature. This continues throughout the play with lines such as â€Å"The Moor already changes with my poison† (III iii 322) and â€Å"Not poppy nor mandragora, | Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world shall medicine thee to that sweet sleep | Which thou did owdest yesterday† (III iii 327-30). His malicious character is likened to a snake through this imagery of poisons like a snake has and then Lodovico calls him a â€Å"Viper† (V ii 281) which indicates how Iago’s character is that of a snake, and in those times a snake was considered a creature of pure evil. The Machiavellian persona of Iago can also be seen through his use of reputation imagery to Cassio and Oth ello. To Cassio he says â€Å"Reputation is an idle and most false imposition† (II iii 267-8) and as a paradox, to Othello, he says reputation is everything to a man and he is nothing with out it. Iago is also likened very much, though imagery, to the Devil.

Frankenstein

The Power of Frankenstein and Manfred Throughout the novel Frankenstein, author Mary Shelley clearly illustrates the moral of the story. God is the one and only creator; therefore, humans should never attempt to take His place. Literary critic Marilyn Butler sums up that we aren’t to tamper with creation in her comment: â€Å"Don’t usurp God’s prerogative in the Creation-game, or don’t get too clever with technology† (302). Butler warns that as humans, we should never assume the position of God. As Victor Frankenstein takes advantage of his deep scientific knowledge, he is punished for taking his experimenting too far.The novel opens as Victor Frankenstein recalls his curiosity and fascination with human life. Frankenstein quickly becomes obsessed with experimenting, and he attempts to create a living being out of dead body parts. He succeeds, but his creation turns into a living monster. Exclaimed by Frankenstein, â€Å"It was the secrets of heave n and earth that I desired to learn† (Shelley 33). Victor is extremely horrified by his grotesque looking creation and falls into a severe illness. While Victor is ill, the monster escapes to the woods where he watches a family and tries to befriend the humans.But once the monster makes his presence known, the family can’t accept Frankenstein’s ugly appearance. Because all humans he encountered reject him, the monster begins to hate people and believe that they are his enemies. Frustrated, the monster returns to his creator and demands that Frankenstein makes a female companion to cure his loneliness. The creature promises Victor that he will leave with his female companion, travel to South America, and never come in contact with humans again. However, two years beforehand, the creature spitefully murdered Victor's brother William to get back at him.Holding a grudge against his monster creation for the death of William, Victor refuses to make a friend for the mon ster. In an effort to make Victor as miserable as himself, the monster seeks revenge on his creator. The monster takes his frustration out on everything and everyone dear to Victor, and murders of Frankenstein’s family and friends. The remainder of the novel revolves around the struggles Victor Frankenstein encounters as he attempts to escape from the mess of a vengeful monster he has made.The moral of the story doesn’t simply stress that God is the only Creator, but it also emphasizes the responsibility we need to take for our actions. Humans all make mistakes, but we are all held accountable. Victor Frankenstein creates this monster and then runs away from the disaster he makes. Similarly, parents are responsible for the children they have, even if the pregnancy wasn’t desired. Frankenstein creates a monster he doesn’t want, but he is still responsible to take care of his mistake, which he fails to do. Victor Frankenstein expresses: â€Å"It was a stro ng effort of the spirit of good, but it was ineffectual.Destiny was too potent, and her immutable laws had decreed my utter and terrible destruction† (Shelley 38). Victor describes his intention to create as a good intent, but because the monster he created was sinful, his effort was useless. Victor is quick to blame his terrible creation on destiny saying that he was only trying to do honorable actions, but they weren’t successful. Though the message of the story is apparent, the antagonist and protagonist of the story can’t be as clearly identified. In the beginning of the novel, Victor Frankenstein is the bad guy for creating his monster and not caring for it.However some readers may say that as the story develops, the monster turns into the antagonist. The monster is searching for ways to make his creator unhappy. The monster’s god is Victor, he doesn’t know of any higher power. The monster learns to be evil and vengeful as he observes the human s, so he acts upon what he sees. Clearly, the monster’s sins such as murder are deliberate. The monster, however, wasn’t taught how to behave appropriately in situations. As we are commanded in the book of Romans, we are not to take revenge: â€Å"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath† (Revelation 12:19).Though I am a firm believer that we are to follow God’s commands, I believe that the true antagonist of the story is Victor Frankenstein. Victor is the creator of this evil being, thus he is responsible for the neglect and actions of his monster. It is inevitable that a time comes for parents to let their children branch out to make their own decisions. Parents cannot be held fully accountable for their children’s mistakes, but they are accountable for the foundation on which they raised their children. Victor is very responsible for the monster’s decisions because Victor failed to give him a fair founda tion.Running from his sins, Victor Frankenstein is responsible for all of his personal actions and most of the actions of the monster he chose to create. Victor dangerously messes with God’s job of creating. Once he makes this creature, he should have taken responsibility for the life he brought into the world. Because the creature isn’t nurtured, taught, and loved, I believe that all of his later sinful acts of revenge are a direct reflection of him being neglected. The monster does not create himself, or chose to be neglected, so he shouldn’t be responsible for most of his behaviors.In today’s society, everyone is held accountable for their actions, no matter what background or family situation they come from. Sometimes, we are unfairly held accountable for our wrongdoings even if weren’t provided with the resources to make better decisions. Generally, in situations such as in the classroom or social conditions, children and adults who haven†™t had teaching and advantages given to them aren’t held as highly accountable for their actions. This is a similar situation to Frankenstein and the monster he regrettably made.I believe that Frankenstein should be held more highly accountable for his mistakes. The monster was never taught how to behave as he grew up, which wasn’t his fault. Living in the woods and being able to observe how humans should acceptably behave, he should be held partially accountable for his actions. I have come to understand that we are held accountable for what we know. Victor Frankenstein was an educated man who knew better than to tamper with the creation of life. There is no excuse for the mistake he made and didn’t assume responsibility. Victor Frankenstein is more of a monster than the monster he created.Evil is at the heart of the story as expressed by critic George Levine: â€Å"In gothic fiction, but more particularly in Frankenstein, evil is both positively present and largely inexplicable. † The monsters evil nature is inexplicable. As he was never nurtured and taught manners, the monster was also never taught to be evil. The monster chose to act on his evil emotions, which isn’t easily identified. At the end of the novel in an effort to destroy humans, especially his creator, the monster kills Victor Frankenstein’s brother, William, when he sees him in the woods.The monster also kills Victor’s love, Elizabeth. The monster is a prisoner to this state of a lonely life. He couldn’t help the way he was born into the world and left to fend for himself. He could have, however, chose to act differently on his angry emotions. Initially, Victor thought that he could escape this misery and get rid of the monster if he made a female. After more careful thought, Victor was worried that he will create a whole family of monsters who would take over the world. The scientist refuses to get himself into even more of a mess.It d oes appear that Victor learned from his mistake, but it seems to be too late. Victor is being spiteful in refusing to make the monster a companion. Though Victor still refuses to take responsibility for the one monster he already created, he is smart enough to acknowledge the tragedy that would come from creation of another. The novel Frankenstein shows close relation to Lord Byron’s play Manfred. Mary Shelly used Byron’s poem as an inspiration for her novel as both stories exhibit man’s struggles with the supernatural.Byron opens his dramatic poem with Manfred pondering his guilty conscience. Manfred conjures up seven spirits: earth, ocean, air, night, mountains, winds, and the star, but none of them grant him the wish of forgetting the thoughts that race through his mind. Under the cast of a spell, he then pursues his own death, but is not given his wish of death. As Manfred stands on the edge of a cliff, he contemplates suicide: I feel the impulse Yet I do no t plunge; I see the peril Yet do not recede; And my brain reels And yet my foot is firm. (1. 2. 280-283)Death doesn’t take Manfred because it wasn’t his time. Full of depression about his onetime lover, Astarte, and the suicide of his dear sister, Manfred doesn’t know what to do. He refuses relief from the different spirits and also rejects religion. The Abbot shows up to Manfred to save his soul, but Manfred declines: â€Å"Manfred believes himself to be above his fellow mortals but he is not fit for the life of an immortal, either. To him, there is only one option for such a conflicted soul: death† (Warren). Manfred refuses to stoop down low enough to allow a mortal to help him.Mary Shelley and Lord Byron both exhibit the danger of tampering with the power of God. Lord Byron writes: â€Å"Sorrow is Knowledge: they who know the most/ Must mourn the deepest o’er the fatal truth, / The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life† (1. 10-12). I int erpret these lines to sum up that we shouldn’t mess with the knowledge that we have, because it doesn’t reap good things, or life. Victor Frankenstein certainly took his knowledge of science to a level beyond his place, and his knowledge brought about disaster life. Lord Byron also creates a character that takes too much control and acts in Gods position.Filled with guilt, Manfred tries to seize the power of God and decide his own time for death. That isn’t our position or our calling, only God’s. Victor Frankenstein tries to assume the position of God by creating life. Similarly, Manfred tries to assume the position of God by deciding when to end life. Refusing the Abbot’s help, Manfred turns from religion. Both characters acted as if their own power was above everyone else and God. Victor thought he was good enough to take God’s place of creating while Manfred thought he was too good to accept God’s gift of salvation.Both Shelley an d Byron paint a clear picture of the consequences that come from attempting to take God’s power and position. Works Cited Butler, Marilyn. â€Å"Frankenstein and Radical Science. † Shelly 302. Byron, Lord. Manfred. Vol. XVIII, Part 6. The Harvard Classics. New York: P. F. Collier ; Son, 1909-14: Bartleby. com, 2001. www. bartleby. com/18/6/. [September 26, 2012]. Levine, George. â€Å"Frankenstein and the Tradition of Realism. † Shelly 209. Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Ed. Simon ; Brown. 1818. Warren, Ashley. â€Å"Association of Young Journalists And Writers. † UniversalJournal AYJW. Web. 29 Oct. 2012. Frankenstein Raphael Porras Tabula Rasa Theory: Frankenstein’s Creature The nature versus nurture debate has been an ongoing issue in Psychology. It centres on whether a person's behaviour is a product of his or her genes or the person's environment and surroundings. Some well-known thinkers such as Plato and Descartes proposed that certain things are inherited and innate or that they simply occur naturally regardless of human influences. On the other hand, other philosophers such as John Locke believed in what is known as the tabula rasa.It is a theory which suggests the human mind begins as a â€Å"white paper void of all characters without any ideas,† (Gerrig et al. 51-57). This theory is what  Mary Shelley's Frankenstein revolves on as one researcher suggests that this notion of tabula rasa is what Shelley's account of the Creature's development seems to hold (Higgins 61). By considering this concept, where all humans start as a â€Å"blank slate,† as reflected in the c haracter development of the Creature and narrative style being used in the story, one can see that the person’s environment plays a big role in moulding a person's attitude and behaviour.This is noteworthy because the creature started his life as an innocent and naive person. He only became vicious and malevolent after going through harsh treatments of society. Although the Creature didn't go through childhood, he began his life like a child. He had no knowledge or idea of how the world works. â€Å"I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew and could distinguish nothing,† he said (Shelley 129). Higgins suggests that it is significant to know that the Creature did not describe any feelings of loneliness in his early stages of life; this only begins when he encounters the De Lacey family (63).Although he had been already treated ill by people prior to meeting them, the creature have not mentioned how he felt, whether he was upset about it or not, after all, he did n’t know how to respond to any kind stimuli tossed at him. Through day to day observation of the De Lacey family, he learned various things, from reading and writing to human history and relationships. Of all the stuff he learned, there is one important aspect of life that affected him the most and that is the essence of having a family. He only started to have feelings of compassion and sympathy because of them. I saw no cause for [De Lacey’s] unhappiness; but I was deeply affected by it,† the Creature says (Shelley 136). The Creature became so attached to the family that when â€Å"they were unhappy, [he] felt depressed; when they rejoiced, [he] sympathized in their joys† (Shelley 138). To be accepted by them was a precarious moment for him but, unfortunately, he got rejected by the family whom he cared and loved. Because of this he flees to the woods, and in turn, he saves a girl who almost got drowned. Instead of being called a savior for his heroic ac t, he rather got fired and shot that almost killed him.All these catastrophic moments of rejection by mankind add up to his feelings of aversion and abhorrence. â€Å"Inflamed by pain, [he] vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind† (Shelley 166). By killing Victor’s brother, William, and several of Victor’s beloved ones, he then turns into a vicious monster as what society brands him to be right from the start. This gradual development of the Creature, from an innocent human being to an atrocious monster, perhaps rests its claim on being a good foundation to the tabula rasa theory.Another functional way that Mary Shelley uses in the novel is her application of the first person narrative of the Creature. It is effective as it enables the readers to be more involved of the activities and engagements of the monster. Although he is not the protagonist of the story, this way of narration keeps the readers close to the action and makes them understand more th e contemplations and cogitations of the Creature. This makes the readers feel as if they were part of a jury of a case where the monster is the one being prosecuted, trying to defend himself by relating his side of the story.Higgins suggests that the Creature’s narrative form has an impact on his confessional writings and rhetoric alienation (62). Through this, one can see the transformation of the monster from being like a child into becoming a cold blooded murderer. Through her portrayal of the development of the Creature and her unique style of narration, Shelley is able to picture to the reader the reality that society plays an important role in wielding a person’s attitude and behavior. Percy Shelley proposes that if you treat a person ill, he will become wicked; and if you requite affection with scorn, you impose upon him irresistible obligations – alevolence and selfishness (qtd. in Veeder 226). This, feasibly, holds true to the modern society today for n o one is born a killer unless he or she is pushed to kill someone through traumatic and disastrous life events and experiences. Works Cited Gerrig, Richard, et al. Psychology and Life. 2nd ed. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2012. Print Higgins, David. Frankenstein: Character Studies. Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd, 2008. Print. Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Eds. D. L. Macdonald, and Kathleen Scherf. Buffalo: Broadview P, 1999. Print. Veeder, William. Mary Shelley & Frankenstein. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986. Print. Frankenstein The Power of Frankenstein and Manfred Throughout the novel Frankenstein, author Mary Shelley clearly illustrates the moral of the story. God is the one and only creator; therefore, humans should never attempt to take His place. Literary critic Marilyn Butler sums up that we aren’t to tamper with creation in her comment: â€Å"Don’t usurp God’s prerogative in the Creation-game, or don’t get too clever with technology† (302). Butler warns that as humans, we should never assume the position of God. As Victor Frankenstein takes advantage of his deep scientific knowledge, he is punished for taking his experimenting too far.The novel opens as Victor Frankenstein recalls his curiosity and fascination with human life. Frankenstein quickly becomes obsessed with experimenting, and he attempts to create a living being out of dead body parts. He succeeds, but his creation turns into a living monster. Exclaimed by Frankenstein, â€Å"It was the secrets of heave n and earth that I desired to learn† (Shelley 33). Victor is extremely horrified by his grotesque looking creation and falls into a severe illness. While Victor is ill, the monster escapes to the woods where he watches a family and tries to befriend the humans.But once the monster makes his presence known, the family can’t accept Frankenstein’s ugly appearance. Because all humans he encountered reject him, the monster begins to hate people and believe that they are his enemies. Frustrated, the monster returns to his creator and demands that Frankenstein makes a female companion to cure his loneliness. The creature promises Victor that he will leave with his female companion, travel to South America, and never come in contact with humans again. However, two years beforehand, the creature spitefully murdered Victor's brother William to get back at him.Holding a grudge against his monster creation for the death of William, Victor refuses to make a friend for the mon ster. In an effort to make Victor as miserable as himself, the monster seeks revenge on his creator. The monster takes his frustration out on everything and everyone dear to Victor, and murders of Frankenstein’s family and friends. The remainder of the novel revolves around the struggles Victor Frankenstein encounters as he attempts to escape from the mess of a vengeful monster he has made.The moral of the story doesn’t simply stress that God is the only Creator, but it also emphasizes the responsibility we need to take for our actions. Humans all make mistakes, but we are all held accountable. Victor Frankenstein creates this monster and then runs away from the disaster he makes. Similarly, parents are responsible for the children they have, even if the pregnancy wasn’t desired. Frankenstein creates a monster he doesn’t want, but he is still responsible to take care of his mistake, which he fails to do. Victor Frankenstein expresses: â€Å"It was a stro ng effort of the spirit of good, but it was ineffectual.Destiny was too potent, and her immutable laws had decreed my utter and terrible destruction† (Shelley 38). Victor describes his intention to create as a good intent, but because the monster he created was sinful, his effort was useless. Victor is quick to blame his terrible creation on destiny saying that he was only trying to do honorable actions, but they weren’t successful. Though the message of the story is apparent, the antagonist and protagonist of the story can’t be as clearly identified. In the beginning of the novel, Victor Frankenstein is the bad guy for creating his monster and not caring for it.However some readers may say that as the story develops, the monster turns into the antagonist. The monster is searching for ways to make his creator unhappy. The monster’s god is Victor, he doesn’t know of any higher power. The monster learns to be evil and vengeful as he observes the human s, so he acts upon what he sees. Clearly, the monster’s sins such as murder are deliberate. The monster, however, wasn’t taught how to behave appropriately in situations. As we are commanded in the book of Romans, we are not to take revenge: â€Å"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath† (Revelation 12:19).Though I am a firm believer that we are to follow God’s commands, I believe that the true antagonist of the story is Victor Frankenstein. Victor is the creator of this evil being, thus he is responsible for the neglect and actions of his monster. It is inevitable that a time comes for parents to let their children branch out to make their own decisions. Parents cannot be held fully accountable for their children’s mistakes, but they are accountable for the foundation on which they raised their children. Victor is very responsible for the monster’s decisions because Victor failed to give him a fair founda tion.Running from his sins, Victor Frankenstein is responsible for all of his personal actions and most of the actions of the monster he chose to create. Victor dangerously messes with God’s job of creating. Once he makes this creature, he should have taken responsibility for the life he brought into the world. Because the creature isn’t nurtured, taught, and loved, I believe that all of his later sinful acts of revenge are a direct reflection of him being neglected. The monster does not create himself, or chose to be neglected, so he shouldn’t be responsible for most of his behaviors.In today’s society, everyone is held accountable for their actions, no matter what background or family situation they come from. Sometimes, we are unfairly held accountable for our wrongdoings even if weren’t provided with the resources to make better decisions. Generally, in situations such as in the classroom or social conditions, children and adults who haven†™t had teaching and advantages given to them aren’t held as highly accountable for their actions. This is a similar situation to Frankenstein and the monster he regrettably made.I believe that Frankenstein should be held more highly accountable for his mistakes. The monster was never taught how to behave as he grew up, which wasn’t his fault. Living in the woods and being able to observe how humans should acceptably behave, he should be held partially accountable for his actions. I have come to understand that we are held accountable for what we know. Victor Frankenstein was an educated man who knew better than to tamper with the creation of life. There is no excuse for the mistake he made and didn’t assume responsibility. Victor Frankenstein is more of a monster than the monster he created.Evil is at the heart of the story as expressed by critic George Levine: â€Å"In gothic fiction, but more particularly in Frankenstein, evil is both positively present and largely inexplicable. † The monsters evil nature is inexplicable. As he was never nurtured and taught manners, the monster was also never taught to be evil. The monster chose to act on his evil emotions, which isn’t easily identified. At the end of the novel in an effort to destroy humans, especially his creator, the monster kills Victor Frankenstein’s brother, William, when he sees him in the woods.The monster also kills Victor’s love, Elizabeth. The monster is a prisoner to this state of a lonely life. He couldn’t help the way he was born into the world and left to fend for himself. He could have, however, chose to act differently on his angry emotions. Initially, Victor thought that he could escape this misery and get rid of the monster if he made a female. After more careful thought, Victor was worried that he will create a whole family of monsters who would take over the world. The scientist refuses to get himself into even more of a mess.It d oes appear that Victor learned from his mistake, but it seems to be too late. Victor is being spiteful in refusing to make the monster a companion. Though Victor still refuses to take responsibility for the one monster he already created, he is smart enough to acknowledge the tragedy that would come from creation of another. The novel Frankenstein shows close relation to Lord Byron’s play Manfred. Mary Shelly used Byron’s poem as an inspiration for her novel as both stories exhibit man’s struggles with the supernatural.Byron opens his dramatic poem with Manfred pondering his guilty conscience. Manfred conjures up seven spirits: earth, ocean, air, night, mountains, winds, and the star, but none of them grant him the wish of forgetting the thoughts that race through his mind. Under the cast of a spell, he then pursues his own death, but is not given his wish of death. As Manfred stands on the edge of a cliff, he contemplates suicide: I feel the impulse Yet I do no t plunge; I see the peril Yet do not recede; And my brain reels And yet my foot is firm. (1. 2. 280-283)Death doesn’t take Manfred because it wasn’t his time. Full of depression about his onetime lover, Astarte, and the suicide of his dear sister, Manfred doesn’t know what to do. He refuses relief from the different spirits and also rejects religion. The Abbot shows up to Manfred to save his soul, but Manfred declines: â€Å"Manfred believes himself to be above his fellow mortals but he is not fit for the life of an immortal, either. To him, there is only one option for such a conflicted soul: death† (Warren). Manfred refuses to stoop down low enough to allow a mortal to help him.Mary Shelley and Lord Byron both exhibit the danger of tampering with the power of God. Lord Byron writes: â€Å"Sorrow is Knowledge: they who know the most/ Must mourn the deepest o’er the fatal truth, / The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life† (1. 10-12). I int erpret these lines to sum up that we shouldn’t mess with the knowledge that we have, because it doesn’t reap good things, or life. Victor Frankenstein certainly took his knowledge of science to a level beyond his place, and his knowledge brought about disaster life. Lord Byron also creates a character that takes too much control and acts in Gods position.Filled with guilt, Manfred tries to seize the power of God and decide his own time for death. That isn’t our position or our calling, only God’s. Victor Frankenstein tries to assume the position of God by creating life. Similarly, Manfred tries to assume the position of God by deciding when to end life. Refusing the Abbot’s help, Manfred turns from religion. Both characters acted as if their own power was above everyone else and God. Victor thought he was good enough to take God’s place of creating while Manfred thought he was too good to accept God’s gift of salvation.Both Shelley an d Byron paint a clear picture of the consequences that come from attempting to take God’s power and position. Works Cited Butler, Marilyn. â€Å"Frankenstein and Radical Science. † Shelly 302. Byron, Lord. Manfred. Vol. XVIII, Part 6. The Harvard Classics. New York: P. F. Collier ; Son, 1909-14: Bartleby. com, 2001. www. bartleby. com/18/6/. [September 26, 2012]. Levine, George. â€Å"Frankenstein and the Tradition of Realism. † Shelly 209. Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Ed. Simon ; Brown. 1818. Warren, Ashley. â€Å"Association of Young Journalists And Writers. † UniversalJournal AYJW. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Investment Options Essay

Mutual funds remain the central instruments investors use to achieve their financial goals. Whether for retirement or in the search for additional profits, individual and corporate investors choose mutual funds as a relatively reliable and non-volatile method of making investments. It appears, however, that apart from satisfying the needs of individual investors, mutual funds can successfully work to secure corporate market players from changes and shifts in external markets. In this context, J.  P. Morgan is the bright example of the way mutual funds are used to reduce the negative impact of financial crisis and to overcome the difficulties faced in tough bond markets. J. P. Morgan has probably been the first to use mutual funds as the instrument of protection against the negative impacts of financial crisis. In his article, Michael Pollock (2009) sheds the light on the way J. P. Morgan Strategic Income Opportunities fund helps the company deal with tough bond markets. It appears, that the fund â€Å"has few restrictions typical of bond funds that are marketed to general public† (Pollock, 2009); as a result, it is better equipped to help investors survive through the difficult financial times. The fund functions according to a predetermined set of principles, of which putting money only into places where potential profits overweigh potential risks is probably the most important. The mutual fund at J. P. Morgan does not avoid keeping a portion of assets in cash, so that investors can materialize their investment opportunities when the right moment comes. Short selling is just another instrument the fund uses to generate additional profits; Pollock (2009) also notes that short selling is becoming a widely spread investment tool among bond funds. The list of investment instruments J. P. Morgan uses to manage its mutual fund is not limited to short selling and cash operations. Here, investors are also given a chance to make short borrowings and then to sell these borrowed shares; â€Å"investors can also make similarly bearish bets by buying credit-derivative instruments whose value increases if the price of an underlying corporate bond declines† (Pollock, 2009). To a large extent, the fund relies on the whole set of quantitative techniques that work to identify significant investment opportunities. The fund is actively involved into managing long-term high-yield corporate securities and nonagency mortgage-backed bonds. As a result, the fund has been able to achieve the total return rate of 4. 3% this year (Pollock, 2009). Does that mean that beyond using mutual funds as investment targets and the sources of additional profits, companies can also utilize the benefits of portfolio investment to protect themselves from external crisis threats? There is no definite answer to that question, but J.  P. Morgan obviously tries to change traditional opinions about investment options available to consumers. The truth is that everything we currently know about mutual funds does not make them look as an ideal investment solution. Given that mutual funds are not usually guaranteed by the FDIC and are not insured by any government agency; that mutual funds’ past performance is not always indicative of its future positive prospects; and that to be a member of a mutual fund also means to bear certain costs associated with investments, the whole picture of a mutual fund does not look as much attractive. However, where J. P. Morgan was able to reach the point of total return rate of 4. 3%, investors may have some sort of confidence that the company will pursue the same set of investment principles, being extremely cautious in its investment options and using the mutual fund as an effective means of anti-crisis protection. Conclusion Mutual funds are included into the list of the most widely used investment options. It appears, however, that mutual funds can also be successfully used to protect companies and investors from the negative impact of the financial crisis. Despite the costs investors have to carry as well as unpredictability of external environments, which mutual funds cannot control, the latter remain relatively stable and non-volatile means of dealing with tough bond markets.