End of Confederacy and Efforts of Lincoln and Johnson Essay

End of Confederacy and Efforts of Lincoln and Johnson - Essay Example But at the same time there were views favoring the solution based on limited role of federal government in restructuring process while ensuring unity and nationwide healing policy. This suggestion was against the policy of Radical Reconstruction which was being viewed as the one based on hatred against the Southerners. The main concern of the government was that of defining its role in shaping the political, economic and social integrity of the southern states as the union forces had freed nearly four million slaves. The possibility of co-existence of freed slaves with the rest of white population in a resentful environment was more problematic than the war as it was the issue of slavery that spurred secession among southern states. In Congress, Democrats and moderate Republicans were favoring the lenient policing while the Radical Republicans were pushing for harsher program and complete intervention of federal authority in the restructuring process that should include total equality of newly freed slaves with the remaining white population. But President Lincoln was in favor of the lenient approach as he was in believe that the war itself has changed the states dramatically and more punishment would actually hinder the healing process and forward movement of the nation as a whole.

Early Victorian Prisons Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Early Victorian Prisons - Essay Example Prisons are considered to be institutions used for imprisonment or incarceration and in England today accommodation for prisoners in these institutions are divided into wings that are usually identified by a name, number, or letter. Today there are an estimated nine million people imprisoned worldwide, with the United Kingdom alone accounting for approximately 73 000 inmates in its facilities. This high proportion of prisoners has been associated with many things, such as better funded criminal justice systems, a more strict approach to law and order, and a larger gap between the rich and the poor. There are numerous differences between the prisons of today and those of years ago; one major change being that in early Victorian England people were imprisoned and often sentenced for lengthy periods of time for seemingly important things such as 'picking oakum', whereas in today's world that is certainly not the same situation. Victorian prisons were seen as unpleasant and rundown places with a main goal to keep the surroundings as miserable as possible in an attempt to deter people from committing crimes. The prisons were small, old, and badly-run. London and its suburbs held over a dozen prisons in all, and debtors and convicts, those to be rehabilitated and those simply to be detained all had no trouble finding a place to wait out their days. By the 1860s there were two distinct types of Victorian prisons: the local and the convict prisons. The older, which dated back from as far back as the Saxon times, was called the local prison. This itself was made up of two equally distinct parts: the jail (or gaol) and the House of Correction. Prisons in England during the early Victorian era are of particular interest and subjectivity, and in order to be able to come to a clearer and more cognitive view on this subject matter, the following questions must be addressed: 1. What are prisons 2. To what extent did early Victorian prisons in England deter and reform criminals 3. What are some conclusions that can be made on early Victorian prisons in England By discussing these four questions, we can come to a more knowledgeable and understanding opinion on this subject of interest. This is what will be dissertated in the following. What are Prisons Prisons are literally defined as places where persons are confined and usually deprived of a range of personal freedoms, as punishment for particular and often various crimes. Prisons are also often times used as a tool of political repression, particularly in times of heightened war or conflict. "A prison system is the organizational arrangement of the provision and operation of prisons." The United Kingdom has the highest incarceration rate among all of Western Europe, with an approximated 109 out of every 100 000 people imprisoned in the present day; today there are 139 prisons in England and Wales, with 19 of those having been built rather recently - 1995 or beyond. The rise in the prison population in England has been primarily attributed to changes in terms of sentencing. Crimes such as shoplifting and other forms of petty theft have overtly harsher sentences in the present day than years ago; in 1995 alone over 129 people were in prison for shoplifting, and in 2001, 3 000 people were sent to prison for petty theft for a first time

Socrates And Aristotle On Virtues

Socrates And Aristotle On Virtues Socrates and Aristotle are both ancient philosophers. In their work they both taught on the idea of ethics and virtues. They believed in virtues but their understanding of what is means to be virtuous were different (Lutz, 1998). This is why their teaching on virtue as well as their lives and decisions contradicted. This paper is a critical comparison between Aristotles account of virtue and Socrates account of virtue. The similarity that exists in these teachings is that they believed in existence of virtues and taught their students on what is means to be virtuous only from their different understanding. The two philosophers believed in individuals possessing intellectual virtues. The common thread on the teachings of the two was the fact that people possessed certain virtues (Lutz, 1998). The virtues represent the most significant qualities for a person to possess. The two philosophers taught that having virtues was advantageous. Nevertheless, there are various differences on the way each understood and approached the subject. The differences in the accounts of virtues by the two philosophers are not only revealed in their teachings but also their way of life. Both Aristotle and Socrates were charged with impiety, but their differing understanding of what is virtuous and right led them to different actions. When Socrates was convicted to death, he accepted it and allowed himself to be executed. When he was offered to pay a fine for his crime he refused. He also refused to honour the pleas of Plato and his other students to run away in a boat they had ready for that purpose. Socrates is known to be a man who lived what he preached (Sherman, 1997). He refused to break the law even in the face of death and wanted to set a good example to his students. In a way through his act, he answered some of the questions he had posed to his students on virtue and courage. His actions also lived up to the fact that he advocated for friendship and true sense of commonality. This is what led Socrates to willingly accept hi s death sentence when most people thought he would flee. Socrates believed that running away from the authority amounted to going against his communitys will. As a pursuit of personal happiness, Aristotle on the other hand refused to accept his charges and fled. This is because Aristotles thinking was based on individual happiness and pleasure (Sherman, 1989). Unlike Socrates, when Aristotle was charged with impiety, he took the easy way out. He ran away rather than stay to face the charges. This tells us a lot about Aristotle. This is also evident in his argument that the final goal of human beings is happiness. He argued that living a virtuous life is something pleasurable. In his argument, the virtuous man takes pleasure in living a virtuous life. In his argument, it seems like devoid of virtues, a person cannot achieve happiness. It is like virtue is the linking aspect to happiness. This is in contrast with the theory of Socrates who argues that the best way of life is focusing on self-development instead of pursuing material things (Lutz, 1998). In his teachings, Socrates never revealed answers, nor did he reveal the truth. Socrates never taught the truth but taught his students how to find the truth by themselves. He just taught his students to discover. Socrates knew that no person could answer the questions concerning courage, virtue and duty to his satisfaction. People just claimed to be virtuous and courageous without really knowing what this meant (Sherman, 1989). On the part of Aristotle, being virtuous was a thing that people could not only understand but also achieve. Aristotle disagrees with Socrates in arguing that ethics is primarily about virtues. Socrates also argues that a person can have virtues without necessarily having the kind of knowledge that typifies mathematics of nature science. Aristotle is capable of demonstrating that ethics and personal interest may be related, that ethics is well-suited to common sense, and that a virtuous person is capable of achieving rational decisions. Aristotle also made a distinction between two kinds of virtues; ethical and intellectual. Ethical virtues come about through habitual actions. He argued that people are born with the capacity to live a virtuous life. He also argues that education is essential in establishing human capability to make virtuous acts habitual. Aristotle believed that people have to act virtuously as much as they can and by doing so they make a step in becoming virtuous. He also believes that ethical virtues need to be attended with pleasure. He believed that human beings cannot be exposed to pain when they are acting virtuously. If a person is exposed to pain as a result of an action, then he cannot be considered virtuous (Sherman, 1989). Unlike Socrates who believed in doing what is right, Aristotle believed that too much and too little are always wrong. He argued that virtuous acts are always midway states between the contrasting vices of excess and deficiency. This is unlike the idea of Socrates where there was no compromise or flexibility in being good. Aristotles theory of virtues allows for flexibility. Socrates stresses that virtue was the most important possession and that life must be lived in pursuit of good (Sherman, 1997). While both of the philosophers believed in the benefit of having virtues, it is Socrates who stresses more than Aristotle the importance of the virtues. In his Socrates view there is no go between; people had to be good. In Socrates theory the idea of happiness and pleasure brings in an aspect of compromise. Between the two philosophers, it is Socrates who forms the best example of living a virtuous life.

Summary of Cinderella Essay -- essays research papers

As children most of our life lessons were acquired through the simplicity of fairy tales. Subliminal messages taught us to always believe in true love and that good wins out over evil. Young and naà ¯ve, as children, all we desired was a good story and a nap, but the lessons we learned lasted a lifetime. Growing up my beloved fairy tale was Cinderella, not only does true love win but good wins over evil and eventually the world is set right. Once upon a time in a kingdom far away, lived a beautiful girl and her frail father. Fearing he would leave his young daughter an orphan he married a young widow, soon after he brought his bride and two daughters to live with him on his manor. Almost exactly a year later, he past away in his sleep leaving his entire household behind. His young daughter Cinderella wept for three years without delay and when she wiped her tears away she found herself a sixteen year old servant in her own home. Daily life was much the same she waited on Heather and Kim, her stepsisters, and satisfied her stepmothers every whim. Mundane and downright boring, Cinderella had amazingly evolved into a beautiful and charming young woman. Being as meek as a mouse and having a voice as sweet as honey Cinderella was loved by everyone she encountered except her own family, who is envy, leaked from their pores. One dazzling spring morning, Cinderella awoke to a great commotion. ?The prince is having a ball, the prince is having a ball,? Heather screeched and they all squealed with delight. Quietly standing in the shadows Cinderella timidly asked, ?Stepmother may I go to the ball ?Well I suppose, if you get this house immaculately clean and mind... ...s her carriage galloped away. Scouring the countryside the Prince fitted the slipper to every woman he saw but his search seemed fruitless. The last house he came to was a midsize manor in great-disrepair, inside he found four women. Shoving and scratching to go first Heather tried on the slipper, to small. Then Kim tried but her fat feet were much too wide. Next Stepmother insisted she be fitted with the shoe fortunately it was too large. Finally Cinderella got her long awaited turn, she gingerly sat down and tried on the shoe. Perfect fit! Taking her in his arms the Prince proposed and Cinderella accepted. They were married shortly after in a small private ceremony. Cruel and unfair the stepfamily cleaned up after the royal hounds for the rest of their days. As for Cinderella and her prince of course they lived happily ever after.

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla – Review

E’Ek rukaa hua faisla’’ , remake of Hollywood classic ’’Twelve angry men’’ an Oscar Winning Film widely used in Management Schools & corporate for understanding ‘HUMAN BEHAVIOR’ and â€Å"LEADERSHIP STYLES’ †¦.. Let’s take a look at the plot first to be familiar with this movie. The movie starts from a scene in a jury room where 12 jury members are discussing the case for the final verdict. The case is regarding a murder of an old man and the suspect is his own son. Everything from the statement of witnesses to debate of lawyers has already finished. And as they are reaching verdict and counting votes.. 11 said guilty and 1 said not guilty. Now the whole movie revolves around this 1 person who is standing on his ground for voting not guilty. He explains that he is neutral in his judgment and unless he is satisfied he won’t vote guilty. And gradually with his common sense, thinking and debating power ( Advocacy skills ) he changed the mind of other jury members until finally they all voted not guilty. This movie is special especially because it portrays the thinking of 12 different people from 12 different aspects of society, from self-made guy coming from the slums to famous doctor to elite class people. In these 12 jury members, everyone was so careless to reach their decision except that 12th person. They are so preoccupied with their personal problems or engagements that they do not understand the gravity of their decision. 1 person’s life is on stake. yes, the accused guy could be real culprit or maybe not. But they should not just let the guy to be hanged only because they were getting late for a movie or a game or for dinner party, etc. Sometimes the plot do get interesting when that lone ranger (12th jury member) is highlighting the broken links in the statements of witnesses and the case put together by public-prosecutor against the accused. You get the feeling that this guy could do wonders if he were a real lawyer and whether the lawyer for the accused was so stupid. The movie touch the hearts of everyone who watches it. It shows how unsafe we all really are. How much we lie to our self just to feel safe and strong , and how weak we really are. You can relate yourself to each and every one of that jury member. Each person is a manifestation of your in different situations you can find yourself in your daily routine life. And it horrifies you to realise that how prejudiced and careless you have become to other humans and their feelings. You are not wrong in any way.. but you have to be understanding enough and responsible enough to take other’s point of view into account too when reaching a major decision that could effect other’s life. The message is very clear. Do not reach any decision just for the heck of it. Do take time to think and be as neutral as possible. You really feel so sick when you see and hear the remarks of the other jury members and why some of them want the boy to be punished. Just because the guy from elite class think that this boy belongs to slums and so they must be destroyed to make 1 person less against the fight for exploitation. The doctor thinks that these guys are good for nothing and it’s better that the boy should be punished for making this world more safe and clean. But The main character is the jury member who is most difficult to change his decission, Pankaj kapoor (who i am sure was quite young when he acted in this movie), is really amazing in his portrayal of a hurt father who is prejudiced about the accused boy because his own son had been disrespectful to him and even slapped him. And in the end, you really wonder.. this is a movie so there has to be poetic justice. But in this real world, can you really be impartial and neutral while making every decision? i know and you know too.. t’s next to impossible.. that 12th jury member, the ideal human being , only exist in the movie. It’s hard to find anybody who can be impartial in decisions which do not effect their own life. So, the real decision here to be made is to be positive and unbiased and not to be influenced by our preconceived notions in making important decisions. I am glad that i get to share my views with all of you guys. I would totally recommend this movie to eve ryone. and i mean everyone. This movie is worth watching at least once for your development. ttp://www. slideshare. net/prkworld/ek-ruka-hua-faisla The model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the [x-axis]] and concern for people as the Y-axis; each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The resulting leadership styles are as follows: * The indifferent (previously called impoverished) style (1,1) : evade and elude. In this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to preserve job and job seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions. * The accommodating (previously, country club) style (1,9): yield and comply. This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this will increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive. * The dictatorial (previously, produce or perish) style (9,1): control and dominate. With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect performance in return. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure. This style is often used in cases of crisis management. * The status quo (previously, middle-of-the-road) style (5,5): balance and compromise. Managers using this style try to balance between company goals and workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people and production, managers who use this style hope to achieve suitable performance but doing so gives away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are met. * The sound (previously, team style) (9,9): contribute and commit. In this style, high concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company. * The opportunistic style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style, which was added to the grid theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on the grid. They adopt whichever behaviour offers the greatest personal benefit. * The paternalistic style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid theory before 1999. In The Power to Change, it was redefined to alternate between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid. Managers using this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking * Grid theory breaks behavior down into seven key elements: Element| Description| Initiative| Taking action, driving and supporting| Inquiry| Questioning, researching and verifying understanding| Advocacy| Expressing convictions and championing ideas| Decision Making| Evaluating resources, choices and consequences| Conflict Resolution| Confronting and resolving disagreements| Resilience| Dealing with problems, setbacks and failures| Critique| Delivering objective, candid feedback|

Dumpster Diving Literary Analysis Essay

How much food do consumers waste? Not much, a lot, you don’t know, or you don’t care? It doesn’t seem that many consumers do care. In the article, â€Å"On Dumpster Diving† (1993), Lars Eighner uses exposition, description, and narration to criticize consumer wastefulness. Exposition is the literary device that Eighner uses the most throughout this article. Exposition is when the author conveys his story through explanation. Eighner explains certain things rather than telling a word for word story about his experiences. Eighner uses this device often in this article such as when he says, â€Å"I have heard people, evidentially meaning to be polite, use the word foraging, but I prefer to use that word for gathering nuts and berries and such, which I do also according to season and the opportunity†. Eighner does not simply say he disproves of using the word â€Å"foraging† in that way, he explains why he disproves of it. This is the manner in which a majority of the article is told in. Description is another literary device used in this article. When an author writes descriptively they describe what they are discussing in great detail to help the reader better picture what they are saying. There is a bit of descriptive writing in Eighner’s article such as when he says, â€Å"Some students, and others, approach defrosting a freezer by chucking out the whole lot. The mass of frozen goods stays cold for a long time and items may be found still frozen or freshly thawed†. Describing this process, Eighner tells us that consumers waste food because of ignorance. Not knowing a proper procedure or simply not preparing causes more avoidable wastefulness. The third device Eighner uses in this article is narration. Narration is simply telling a story the way it happened. There is no stopping to explain or describe what you are discussing. Eighner practices this device when he says, â€Å"I began scavenging by pulling pizzas out of the dumpster behind a pizza delivery shop. While it lasted I had a steady supply of fresh, sometimes warm pizza†. Eighner tells us this to let us know that instead of donating the good pizza to the needy, the pizza shop just throws it in the  trash. Eighner’s purpose in this essay is to criticize consumer wastefulness. Eighner gives proof of consumer wastefulness in order to open the eyes of consumers so people will care more about what they throw out, and focus more on saving what they can. Eighner’s tone in this article is formal. Eighner writes in a formal tone to let the consumers whom he is addressing know that just because he is homeless does not mean his opinion is unknowledgeable. If anything he should know more about the subject because he has seen it from both sides. Eighner uses a formal tone because the average consumer would think more highly of his opinion if it is written formally, as opposed to informally. The article leaves me wondering whether or not consumers will see and understand what Eighner is trying to convey. Will people see how much food is being wasted? Are people going to start to stop and think about what they are throwing in the trash? Will the amount of wasted food decline, stay the same, or even increase?