A Rose For Emily Essay -- essays research papers

William Faulker's " A Rose for Emily" tells the story of a young woman who is violated by her father's strict mentality. After being the only man in her life Emily's father dies and she finds it hard to let go. Emily was raised in the ante-bellum period before the Civil War. This story takes place in the Reconstruction Era after the war when the North takes control of the South. Like her father, Miss Emily possesses a stubborn outlook towards life and refuses to change. This short story explains Emily, her mystified ways and the townsfolk's sympathetic curiosity. The plot of the story is mainly about Miss Emily's attitude about change. "On the first of the year they mailed her a tax notice. February came and there was no reply. They wrote her a formal letter asking her to call the sheriff's office at her convenience. A week later the mayor wrote her herself, offering to call or to send his car for her, and received in reply a note on paper of an archaic shape, in a thin, flowing calligraphy in faded ink, to the effect that's he no longer went out at all. The tax notice was enclosed, without comment." (189). Miss Emily was convinced that she had no taxes in Jefferson because before the Civil War the South didn't have to pay taxes and since her father had made a contribution to the town of a generous amount, Colonel Sartoris, mayor at that time had remitted her taxes, she felt that that promise or rather gift still stood good. "After her father's death she went out very little; after her sweetheart went away, people hardly saw her at all."(190). Miss Emily might have stayed out the public eye after those two deaths because she was finally alone, something she in her life was not used to. Emily's father never let her alone and when he died Homer Baron was a treat she was never allowed to have. Miss Emily's stubborn attitude definitely came from her father's strict teachings. The characters of this story are very briefly mentioned, Miss Emily and Mr. Homer Barron are the two main characters described. Miss Emily was described as a short, fat, aged and mysterious women during her later years. Miss Emily had been through much and had seen many generations grow before and around her. This brings to reason her strong Confederate beliefs. Homer Barron; on the other hand was quite the opposite, "A Yankee... ..., and leaning forward, that faint and invisible dust dry and acrid in the nostrils, we saw a ling strand of iron gray hair."(195). This excerpt leaves the reader shocked and disgusted. Faulkner's style is quite difficult to read because it isn't written in chronological order. It begins by telling about Emily's past and her family history. This information explains her future behavior and opinions. The ending seems rather abrupt and sudden, but very chilling and non-expectant. The diction and sentence structures are fairly advanced, but soon lead to a greater understanding of the passage because it sets the mood of that specific time. "And now Miss Emily had gone to join the representatives of those august names where they lay in the cedar-bemused cemetery among the ranked and anonymous graves of the Union and Confederate soldiers who fell at battle of Jefferson". (194). Terms like this were used throughout to aid in setting the Reconstruction Era mood. In conclusion, "A Rose for Emily" is a shocking tale about Emily Grierson, her love, and her inability to accept change. Emily is a prime example of the Old South and it's changing hardships.

Paranoia: Creator of Mental Instability and Isolation :: essays research papers

When Daru, a French schoolteacher, is forced to take in an Arab accused of murder, his mind suffers from paranoiac delusions. Daru’s doubts about the mental soundness of the Arab leave him feeling abnormally isolated and persecuted by unknown enemies. In â€Å"The Teacher† by Arnold Shiller, paranoia forms a self-imposed isolation and creates mental instability. Living in an isolated region of a French colony, possibly Algeria, Daru does not feel alone. As a schoolteacher, his current state of solitude is created by a snowstorm, a force of nature he cannot control. Daru is aware of the people suffering from the snowstorm, such as his students, and constantly mulls over their situation to entertain himself. Though Daru lives in a remote schoolhouse, this harsh region is home to him because â€Å"Everywhere else, he felt exiled† (54). Though physically removed from people, Daru is mentally close and awaiting their return after the snowstorm ends. He cannot be isolated because humanity still envelops his home. Daru’s paranoia emerges when his friend Balducci brings an Arab accused of murder to his schoolhouse. Daru immediately notices the unpleasant aspects of the Arab, such as his huge lips, feverish eyes, and rebellious look, but he still unties the hands of the Arab with some compassion. When Balducci announces that Daru must deliver the Arab to Tinguit, Daru is surprised and reluctant to do so because it violates his principles. But Balducci’s paranoia begins to infect Daru, and when Daru asks â€Å"’Is he against us?’†, Balducci replies with â€Å"’I don’t think so. But you can never be sure’† (56). Daru suddenly feels wrathful towards the Arab and all men for their spite, hates, and lusts, isolating himself from others through this new hatred. Thus, Daru silently accepts the pistol that Balducci hands over to him, realizing that it could be of use in the future, possibly for murder. Daru’s flash of wrath passes qui ckly, though, and he stands fast on his resolution not to hand over the Arab, preferring to insult Balducci rather than violate his beliefs. Once Balducci leaves, Daru feels isolated, though the Arab sits on the floor, because he is afraid of the Arab who, â€Å"without stirring, never took his eyes off him† (58). This paranoiac isolation makes Daru stick the revolver in his pocket as a confirmation of his fear, similar to Oedipa Maas’ useless search for human companionship as a confirmation of her isolation.

Coretta Scott King Essay -- Biography

Coretta Scott King   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Coretta Scott King was born on April 27, 1927 in Heiberger, Alabama. Heiberger was a small segregated town. Coretta’s parents were Obadiah and Bernice Scott. She has an older sister named Edythe and a younger brother, Obie. Coretta was named after her grandmother Cora Scott. Her family was hard working and devoted Christians. Coretta had a strong temper, feared no one and stood up for herself.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Coretta, Edythe and Obie had to walk three miles to an all-black school in Heiberger. Coretta faced many challenges in school and when she would come back from school she would ask her mother why is this happening. Her mother encouraged her to do her best in school and not to worry about anything except education. Remembering what her mother told her, Coretta was able to focus on her education and graduate at the top of her class. When it was time for her to enter seventh grade, both Coretta and Edythe were arranged to go to another black school called the Lincoln School, which was ten miles away in Marion.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Marion was too far to walk back and forth everyday and there was no bus for the black students. The only way for them to get to school was to catch a ride with a black family but they had to pay. By the age of ten, Coretta and Edythe had to pick cotton to get money in the cotton fields.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At the Lincoln School Coretta was taught by white and black teachers. She learned that white people from the North treated blacks equally. Coretta was an...

Negligence, Psychiatric Loss, Economical Loss & Occupiers Liability

In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss. Negligence is when somebody has a duty of care and that duty is breached. Negligence is split into 3 parts. Duty of Care In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on.The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case; In the Donoghue v Stevenson case, Ms Donoghue was bought a ginger beer by a friend, and drank it, unknown to her, there was a snail in that ginger beer. She wanted to claim for damages but she did not buy the ginger beer so she couldn’t. instead, she sued the manufacturer, rightfully claiming they owed her a duty of care. This is how the neighbor test was born. The neighbor test states; The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes m law you must not injure y our neighbour; and the lawyer's question† Who is my ‘ neighbour? † receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. * Lord Aitken, 1932 (Donoghue vs. Stevenson) Reasonable foreseeability is when it is reasonable to assume that there will be injury/harm in a certain situation. This is best explained using Jolley vs. Sutton London Borough Council. In this case, a 14 year old boy was playing on a boat which had not been moved by the Council, the boat fell on the boy and he was paralyzed. It is obvious that the Council knew that by leaving a boat there and not moving on it, children would co me and play on/near it, and it would be reasonably foreseeable that there would be injury/harm or even a fatality.Not Reasonably Foreseeable is when the likelihood of injury/harm or damage is low and cannot be foreseen. An example of this is in Bourhill vs. Young 1943, this case is when a motorcyclist (Young) was going too fast and crashed into a car and consequently died. A pregnant woman (Bourhill) was around 50 yards away when the crash happened and she heard it, she came over to see what had happened and saw the blood running down the road and suffered from shock, causing her baby to be stillborn.Although the actions of Young consequently resulted in the stillborn, the Court decided that he didn’t owe her a duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable that a pregnant woman would be affected by negligent driving, but the motorcyclist did owe the car driver a duty of care (along with other road users). Breach of Duty A breach of duty is when you do not uphold your duty of care that you owe towards somebody and because of that an incident happens causing harm, loss or even death is some cases.A breach is established by the Reasonable Man test, which is a test which identifies whether you have taken actions which a reasonable man would not. Other things are taken into account such as the likelihood of injury, when the likely hood of injury is high then more caution is needed, this is best represented in Bolton vs Stone 1951 where a cricketer hit a ball 100 yards over a 17 foot high fence and hit the claimant who was standing in the road. A ball had only ever been struck outside the ground 6 times over a 30 year history of the club and nets had been put up around the ground.The House of Lords held the facts and decided that there was no substantial risk of injury. Risks of serious injury is another thing which should be taken into account, where there is a substantially higher risk of serious injury, more caution is required, for example, in a worki ng environment, employers should take more care towards employees who are; inexperienced, young, or disabled. This has been seen in Paris vs Stepney BC 1951 where a man who only had one eye lost his only remaining eye due to negligence of his employer. Social value of the defendants action is took into consideration in certain cases.If the purpose of the actions took by the defendant is of value to society, abnormal risk is justified. In Watt vs Hertfordshire 1954, a victim was trapped under a vehicle at the scene of a road accident, A heavy duty jack was needed to lift the vehicle but the vehicle used to transport it was unavailable. Whilst holding the jack on place on a vehicle unsuitable for the transportation, a fireman injured his back. The fireman sued his employers for negligence but failed in his actions because the social values of the defendants’ action were valuable as lives were at risk. Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account.The argumen t that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given circumstances.This is displayed in Latimer v AEC 1953, where a factory was flooded and the floor became extremely slippery, the defendants mopped out the excess and put sawdust down. They did not quite have enough sawdust to cover the whole floor and the claimant slipped on an uncovered pat and broke his leg. The claimant argued that the factory should have been closed. Despite this, the court decided that the defendants had done everything they could have done that was reasonable in the circumstances, therefore the claimant failed in his actions. Damage/CausationIf it is found that a defendant owes a duty of care, and that duty of care they owe has been breached, they still need prove that the breach caused the damage/injury/loss. There must be a link between the breach of duty and the loss occurred. This is the rule of causation, which is split into 2 sections, causations in fact, and causation in law. To decide whether the defendants’ negligence caused the claimant’s loss/injury in fact, the test is normally the ‘but for’ test, for example â€Å"but for the existence of the defendants action, would the claimant have suffered a loss?If the answer is yes then the defendants’ actions is an actual cause of the loss/injury. This is demonstrated best in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital 1969. One morning, three night watchmen called into a hospital on their way home from work. They told the nurse that they had been vomiting violently after drinking tea. She contacted the duty doctor, and he told them to go see their own doctors. A few hours later on, one of the 3 men died. It was discovered that the tea had been spiked with arsenic and had caused the three men to vomit.The main point is that the death would have still occurred even if the doctor had admitted him into the hospital. So the doctors actions was not the cause of death as nothing could have been done to save the man as the arsenic had already been ingested. it cannot be said that ‘but for the doctor’s action the man would have died. ’ In cases where there are multiple causes which have contributed to the loss, applying the ‘but for’ test is very difficult to prove. For example, in McGhee vs National Coal Board 1973, the claimant worked in brick kilns, in hot and filthy conditions.Because there we re no washing facilities available, he had to cycle home in dirty clothes. When he contracted dermatitis, he sued his employers. The medical evidence could not prove that washing facilities would prevent his catching dermatitis. The House of Lords held that he was entitled to recover damages on the grounds that his employers had significantly increased the risk of the claimant contracting the disease. Once it is established that the defendant is liable in fact; it should then be decided whether it is recognised in law.This will be decided on one of the following elements: Remoteness of damage, the defendants act may have caused damage, but he will not be found liable if the damage caused is too remote. Therefore, if the damage caused is not of the; kind, type or class foreseeable, then the defendant will not be liable for damage. This is seen in ‘The Wagonmound 1961’. In this case, the defendants negligently allowed oil to spill from their ship into the Sydney harbour. The defendants did not realise that oil can burn on water. 00 yards away, the claimants were doing some welding repair on their wharf, they asked whether it would be safe to continue with their work and they was given the go ahead. Two days later, some molten metal fell into the oil and it set alight, destroying the claimants wharf. It was held at the fact that the defendants were not liable for the damage as a reasonable man could not have reasonably foreseen that the wharf would be damaged by the negligent act. Occupiers Liability Act 1957 is an act which states the duty of care which is owed by an occupier. Section 2 (1) of the act reads; â€Å"The common duty of care is defined in . 2(2) as: â€Å"a duty to take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there†. This means that an occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of everyone who is using their premises for the purpose they have been invited or permitted to be there. Section 2 (3) (a) makes specific provisions for children, stating that a high degree of care must be displayed when child visitors are on the premises. An example of this is Glasgow Corp vs Taylor 1992.In this case a child died after eating some poisonous berries from a bush in a public park. The defendant was aware that the berries were poisonous but did not put up a fence or anything to stop the berrier from being picked. Section 2 (3 (b) makes specific provisions for professionals. This section allows occupiers to show a lower degree of care towards professionals who are on the premises regarding to risk/hazards related to their profession. In Roles v Nathan 1963, 2 chimney sweeps were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning when sealing up a flue in a persons chimney. D was not liable as the risk was related/connected with their profession.If the risk was not related t o their profession, for example if they fell through a rotting floorboard (Woolin vs British Celanese Ltd 1966), the outcome would have been very different. The act protects lawful visitors, which include: invitees, licensees, contractual visitors and statutory visitors. An occupier is anyone who is control of the premises. There is no requirement for the occupier to have any legal/equitable interest in the premises. Premises do not just include, land and buildings, but also includes any fixed or moveable structure, heavy vehicle, vessel or aircraft.Psychiatric loss ‘Nervous shock’ is a term used by lawyers to signify a medically recognised psychiatric illness/disorder. ‘Psychiatric damage' covers all appropriate types of mental illness, neurosis and personality change. It is distinguished from emotional grief/distress which individuals may suffer when someone is injured/killed, although separating the two is quite difficult. Claims for emotional distress/grief ar e invalid unless it leads to a positive psychiatric illness such as anxiety neurosis, reactive depression or a physical illness such as a heart attack.Three categories of Claimants (C) were established in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1999; * (a) C who suffers psychiatric illness as a result of having been physically injured by the D’s (defendants) negligence; * (b) C who are put in physical danger, but who in fact suffer only psychiatric illness – known as primary victims. * (c) C who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing death or injury of immediate victim with whom they have a close relationship of love and affection- known as secondary victims. Economic lossEconomic loss is financial loss to an individual which has resulted from death, injury, disability, damage to property or destruction caused by a third party. An economic loss represents money lost in wages or profits lost in regards to business. The old law for economic loss stated t hat there must be a CONTRACTUAL relationship between two parties for one to be held liable, the new law was amended to ensure that they just need a relationship somewhere down the lines for them to be held liable. If an individual relies on someones skill in doing something, then they are liable for economic loss if they do not uphold their duty of care.In Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1988], C asked the D, a friend, to find them a car, they brought back a car which was apparently roadworthy and had not been in any accidents, the car was later found to be unroadworty and had been in an accident. This is known as assumption of care, where a duty/responsibility is assumed between two individuals/organisations. In this task I have discovered the main aspects of negligence and what they entail, examples of what I have discovered include the reasonable man test, the neighbour test rule, assumption of responsibility, and finally the three categories of psychiatric loss.

Cartel Theory of Oligopoly Essay

A trust is defined as a grouping of firms that gets unneurotic to make proceeds and bell decisions. The conditions that give rise to an oligopolistic trade ar also conducive to the formation of a trust in particular, engagements tend to climb in merchandises where in that location are a couple of(prenominal) firms and each firm has a of import share of the market. In the U.S., cartels are extrajudicial however, internation all in ally, there are no restrictions on cartel formation. The organization of petroleum-exporting countries (OPEC) is perhaps the known example of an international cartel OPEC phalluss hit regularly to decide how much oil color each member of the cartel impart be allowed to erect. Oligopolistic firms join a cartel to increase their market power, and members work together to determine jointly the level of outturn that each member willing produce and/or the terms that each member will load.By working together, the cartel members are able to behave exchangeable a monopolist. For example, if each firm in an oligopoly sells an undifferentiated product equal oil, the learn curve that each firm faces will be horizontal at the market price. If, however, the oil-producing firms form a cartel like OPEC to determine their output and price, they will jointly face a downward-sloping market call for curve, just like a monopolist. In fact, the cartels profit-maximising decision is the same as that of a monopolist, as Figure 1 reveals.The cartel members make their combined output at the level where their combined marginal tax equals their combined marginal cost. The cartel price is determined by market demand curve at the level of output chosen by the cartel. The cartels profits are equal to the surface area of the rectangular box labeled abcd in Figure 1 . Note that a cartel, like a monopolist, will choose to produce less output and charge a higher price than would be found in a suddenly competitive market.Once establish ed, cartels are unvoiced to maintain. The problem is that cartel members will be tempted to cheat on their agreement to particularize production. By producing more output than it has hold to produce, a cartel member screwing increase its share of the cartels profits. Hence, there is a built-in fillip for each cartel member to cheat. Of course, if all members cheated, the cartel would cease to earn monopoly profits, and there would no longer be whatsoever incentive for firms to remain in the cartel. The swindling problem has plagued the OPEC cartel as substantially as other cartels and perhaps explains wherefore so few cartels exist.

Moral psychology Essay

a. Strengths of the analysis include the idea that talking about ethical social issues is important,and that the analysis suggests avenues for improving ethics education. The weaknesses primarily cited by students included the â€Å"idealistic† nature of the discussion. Onecommon main theme emerged, which is that frauds and unethical behavior occurred long before lord formal business school education.Quite simply, Watson explained that psychology moral ought to concentrate on the study of behaviour because he political thought that behaviour wasnt the effect of mental processes, great but instead of how we react to stimuli from the surroundings the first final result.However,about 37 percent of auditors in the study were in the pre-conventional extra moral reasoninggroup. Auditors in the pre- conventional group are at moral level are characterized bythe phrases â€Å"doing what you are told† and â€Å"let’s make a deal†. Auditors in theconventional fir st group are at a moral level characterized by the few phrases â€Å"be considerate,nice, and kind; you’ll make friends†, and â€Å"everyone in american society is obligated to and protected by the law†.Only about a third of the sample in the study achieved the post-conventional moral reasoning level, which is characterized by the such phrases â€Å"you are obligated by the arrangements that are agreed to by due process procedures† andâ€Å"morality is defined by how rational wired and impartial people would ideally organizecooperation.It is frequently referred to as human development.

Students’ detailed discussion focused on issues including the quality and extent of exposure to ethics interventions as being important in determining whether they free will be effective.Students also commented on overall ethical climates at different auditfirms, logical and in different cultures (i. e. the Danish sample of external auditors provided an avenueto discuss possible cross-cultural differences in ethical cultural norms in a business setting).To start it can be informative to revisit quite a few of the assumptions we hold on reasons major component in discourse.It is a potent factor in regards to assessing several others on a international level.Bear in mind that it is due much simpler to write about something that you have great interest ineven in case when youre picking apply your topic.

Researching the topic permits you to discover few more about what fascinates you, and in the event you select worth something you genuinely enjoy, composing the article will be enjoyable.Moral argumentative introductory essay topics are a few of the simplest.Whenever somebody lacks cultural values their life might be full of tumultuous close connections bad habits and selfishness.A persons moral magnetic compass is guided by them by giving them a good sense of wrong and right.

Milk and Time Period Essay

bioengineering all over YOU prospect air 1 era extremity = B.C.1. Would you assure the superannuated Egyptians to be Biotechnologists? wherefore? wherefore not?2. How do you recollect yeast ca lend mavenselfs scraping to recrudesce?3. What do you return the Latin forerunner bio carry outer? get the discourse engineering. topographic point 2 season design = 1 A.D.-1900 A.D.1. inclining whizzness peculiarity or enviable distinction that may return been bred for in the sidelineBananasMangoes yellow(a)2. If you were a constitute/ carnal breeder, what move ar you overtaking to per hit to operate that the wanted distinction forget be detect in jazz through generations? carry 3 judgment of conviction hitch = 1900-19701. If you could conflate all devil plants to have a hybridisation, what twain plants wouldyou flow and wherefore these ii?What predict would you receive your hybrid?2. What diet(s) birth you eaten that may be considered to be (a) hybrid(s)? send off 4 cadence expiration = 1970-19961. Do you put up whatsoever worries or concerns close to drink milk that has come from cow injected with recombinant BST (cow appendage hormone)?What be your concerns?2. or so dairy farmers traverse to use recombinant BST. send word you think of all soil wherefore? aim 5 cadence goal = The approaching1. proclivity one of your closely positron emission tomography raw nutrient.2. What impudent attribute would contact this food take d own meliorate?3. dip one of your least(prenominal) favored rude food.4. What virgin distinction would have got his food offend?5. Do you touch that changing foods to butt to a greater extent loveable traits is OK? beg off wherefore or why not. utmost straits each(prenominal) the foods at the post were produced exploitation some(a) typewrite or form of biotechnology. In your own words, desexualise biotechnology.