Students Report on Family Values Reduced Essay Example for Free

Students Report on Family Values Reduced Essay Slide 1: Good morning teacher. My name is †¦..I’m come from Viet Nam. I am studying Advance D. My FIN No. is G1139539L. Today I’m going to talk about the decline of family values in society today. Slide 2: Before I start I will show you the outline of my presentation. For the introduction, i will say in general about the decline of family values. After that I will show main points and explain the greed and other reasons which led to family values decrese. Lastly, I will sum up my presentation with summary, prediction and recommendation. Slide 3: Due to globalisation with the growth of materialism, people have high standard of living, the decline of family values become a usual topic these days. Materialism can be defined as a dominating sense of desire to pursue wealth and other tangible things that can provide physical comforts that ignores the importance of spiritual values. Many mourn the loss of joy, the warmth, unity and togetherness in households today. Someone said that this is the period of greed that responsible for this decline but in my opinion, it’s still exist some reasons which make family values decrease. So I will discuss both of it in this presentation. Slide 4: Now moving onto the first part of my presentation which is talk about the impacts of greed to family values include competition within family members, pressure from society to be rich and marriage base on money. Slide 5: Firstly, let me start by an undisputable fact that greed can make intensive competition within family members. For example, we can look at relationship between sibling. Sometimes, second or third children feel inadequate by comparison to a first sibling. They think they work never enough good when compare to their sisters or brothers are exhibit unusual talent. If children are labeled best in a domain, they often do their best to prevent another sibling from encroaching on their domain and gradually become selfish, jealous. Moreover, because of it can make some children have less confident and try to run away from their family. Slide 6: Secondly, I want to mention about pressure from society to be materialistic. To make it clear we can see the characteristics of such materialistic people are greed for money, tendency to become rich quickly even if it involves a lot of risk. It also involves the desire to live in plush houses, wearing highly expensive clothes and jewelry and driving flashy cars. It’s express oneself have high position under look of society and have respect from others. Besides, because of materialism become more popular in society today, the behavior between rich people and poor people also have big diffirence, with this thinking like that, people gradually forget about simple things in a family. Slide 7: In addition, greed in society can led to marriage exist base on money. There is an increase in marital discord and divorces. Nowadays, a lot of people marry for money not for love. That’s why relationship in the family always have conflicts, the greed promotes many other negative feelings as well like lust, selfishness, jealousy, sense of hopelessness. People are forgetting their moral values and often fail to understand the distinction between right choices and the wrong ones. The only thing that matters is good quality life and false comforts. All of this made a family only focus at money and without basic factor to keep a happy family. Slide 8: Now let me turn to the other reasons that are dedication to work, the influence from mass media and social pressure on children to succeed. Slide 9: First of all, dedication to works can become one of the reasons make family values decline. To give an example, busy lives make family member hardly spends time together. Everybody is busy with their own thing. Careers and professions are given priority. Home lives are neglected. Children are lonely and immersed with the computer, T.V. They do not have time to take care of their family even themselves, without discuss problems, holidays together and share difficulties in life. A family without support can not stable. Slide 10: Interestingly, the influence of mass media. With the development of mass media such as: radio, internet, movie, television, newspaper†¦ children who still sensitive are easy to get misconception about family values. Also, now we are living in a open and complex society. Information is get easily with variety of opinions and some of this can take negetive meaning and influence to people surrouding even about family values today. Slide 11: Finally, we look at social pressure on children to succeed. For instance, some parents always put high expectation for their child but they don’t know they are making more stress for children. Pressure to win and be the best. Attending tuition classes. Intense training schedules. In a world of super achievers, children often find themselves at the burnt end of the rope. Parents require their child must to have outstanding results in exam and forget feeling of their child. Some children grow up with lost innocent childhood. Well, that’s all I want to say about reasons whichs led to decline of family values. Slide 12: To sum up, todays lifestyle has changed everything. Many old values are being replaced. Slide 13: Families have never been ideal and flawless nor may they ever be. Ups and downs are part of family lives.spouses should make extra efforts to listen, love and respect each other * INFORMATION: We can still mend our ways and move towards a beautiful world. For this, we have to look for a purpose in our life. Each individual has to make some changes in his outlook. We have to separate ourselves from material world. This will make us happy both with or without the material things that we desire. It will make us feel that if I get that thing its good but if I do not get that its fine with me. Its not very easy for us to get this kind of mental set up but it is not an impossible task too. The rough phase of economy has given us some valuable lessons. That, all the tangible things of the world that we acquire may go some day but still we have the strength within us to survive in tough condition. We are happy that we have not lost ourselves and the support of our family. These things matter more than any other material things of life. We have to give top priority to hard work and not to any shortcut route to achieve success. There is a sense of truth and honesty associated with h ard work which can give us immense satisfaction. We have to increase our knowledge of reality that are non-physical. Lack of knowledge of the non-physical aspects of our life is a major cause of downfall not only of an individual but collectively as a society. Spirituality help us to know our real identity. If we lose our wealth it can be replaced but if we lose our own self then we cannot replace that. The actual solution of the problems, be it economic or otherwise, can be obtained through introspection. We can identify what has caused us face this kind of problem that we are in today. Set yourself free from the material world, recognize the real self that lies within you in dormant condition. In this way you can prevent the influence of materialism from blocking your inner growth. that greed, selfishness and individualism have a negative effect on children families and children need to receive a basic education on the subjects of love and moral responsibility. It is only natural for crime rates to rise and human relations to be impaired in such a society in which affection, compassion and brotherhood are replaced by anger, conflict and feelings of hostility.

Virtue Ethics Essay Example for Free

Virtue Ethics Essay In the field of bioethics, Aristotles ethics does not have the same practical force as action-based theories, especially when the dilemma in question involves deciding whether or not to do some particular action (pulling the plug on a patient). In any case, there are two ways we can apply the character based approach to bioethics. First, the specific healthcare provider (nurse, doctor, etc.) could continually ask themselves What kind of character do I want to have as a healthcare provider, and what actions are consistent with this character?. A healthcare provider can ask themselves whether a certain action reflects the kind of character they want to be associated with. On a more general scale, the healthcare industry itself could ask itself What kind of character do we want associated with the healthcare industry and how would this particular action contribute or take away from that character? Secondly, for Aristotle a virtuous action is a mean between two extremes. For example, bravery is the middle-point between cowardice and foolhardiness. However, it is not always clear whether every action is a mean of this way. How would pulling the plug on a patient fit in Aristotles golden mean analysis? I think the safest way to apply Aristotles theory would be to emphasize character, rather than get lost in the thickets of golden mean analysis. Using Aristotelian ethics to resolve particular cases is always difficult, because the question of what ought I to do? is always secondary to the question what ought I to become?. After all, Aristotle himself admits that we should not expect precision in ethical matters.

Police UK Force

Police UK Force Evaluating the Moral Justification of Force in the UK Police Consequentialism and the Use of Deadly Force Among Police Personnel in the UK Against a backdrop of a democratic society, the use of deadly force by the police in countries such as the UK seems implausible for human rights activists. First, police officers are expected to uphold the human rights of every individual hence, civilian rights are always preserved even in criminal cases where the due process of law is considered to be the golden standard in the judicial system. Thus, threading the line between regulations and policies of the agency as well as the ethical and moral dilemma in the use of deadly force predisposes police officers to question the legitimacy as well as the moral justifications in their use of deadly force. While several philosophical theorists have argued for different justifications through philosophical theories, the theory of consequentialism appears to be the one that closely justifies the use of deadly force among the police. Before examining the moral and ethical arguments for the use of deadly force using the consequentialist paradigm, let us first examine the important aspects of deadly force and the use of it by the UK police. First, deadly force as defined by Geller and Scott (23) pertains to the force reasonably capable of causing death or bodily harm. According to this definition, an act that can kill should be consumated before it can be considered as a deadly force hence; threats are not considered to be within the parameters of this scope. The use of deadly force according to Kappeler, Kraska and Marron (3) falls within emergency situations such as in hostage taking, shooting randomly, pursuance of a police officer of unarrested criminal and other similar incidences. Consequently, in the UK, police officers are given the discretion to determine if the suspect poses a threat to the police officer or the public. In the pursuit of these suspects, police officers are given the power to use deadly force through probably cause of harm. The courts decide whether the use of deadly force is justified or not and in some cases, police officers are charged because their use of deadly force is considered to be unjustifiable. Hence, there is a very thin line separating the justification of the use of deadly force from an act that is unjustified. The ethical and moral dilemma of police officers therefore rests not only on the regulations of their agency but on their analytical and ethical decision. Thus, the pursuit of the philosophical theory that can best justify the use of deadly force ensues. Consequentialism has been considered as one of the more important theories in justifying the use of deadly force by the police primarily because of its consideration of the consequences of a given act. In contrast with other theories that uses the nature of the act itself (deontology) or the goodness of the wrongness of the act or whether it is a good virtue or not (virtue ethics), consequentialism considers the aggregate value of the act based on the summation of its consequences- if it benefits the greater number of people, then it is considered to be morally justifiable. It should be noted that consequentialism has different forms such as the act consequentialism and the rule consequentialism. In this paper both types of consequentialism will be explored. The Ethico-Moral Principles of Consequentialism: Implications in Use of Force First, the use of deadly force is essential in policing and in providing a higher value for the consequences of the actions. Some writers do posit that the use of force is essential and central in policing. Skolnick and Fyfe, in their recent book on the topic, frankly contend: No matter how many warnings may be issued by superiors about limitations on the use of force, no matter how much talk about policing as a profession, police training continually reminds recruits that coercive power is a central feature of police life. (Skolnick and Fyfe, 95) They claim that such force will remain an inevitable component of policing.(Skolnick and Fyfe, 37) Vance McLaughlin similarly asserts that although the use of force by police is not as frequent as the public may imagine, police officers routinely use force to carry out their role as enforcers. His view is that the use of force is inherent in the profession just as legitimate force is an essential ingredient in maintaining an ordered society (McLaughlin, 1). Accordingly, in every nation today, law enforcement officers possess the right to use force (McLaughlin, 7) Lawrence Sherman maintains a comparable perspective in saying: Force is the essence of criminal justice, just as the monopoly on the legitimate use of force is the essence of the nation-state (Sherman, 37). Second, the use of force by the police is legitimized by the concept of the greater good for the greatest number- a concept that is used not only in democratic countries such as the UK but also in moral arguments. For instance, several studies both in domestic and international political and security arena have provided extensive justifications for the use of force using the consequentialist paradigm. For instance, in the study of Whitley (24), the author argued that preventive war to crimes produces more good than evil and hence, similar to the study of Yoo (730), the use of force is self-defense and in defense of society is a just war and is therefore legitimate. Hence, in the same vein, any person who is poised to commit a crime against the society necessarily invokes the right of governing institutions such as the police force to enforce security and safety of the greater good. Within this argument, the virtue of an act or the use of force by the police is justified by the preser vation of security within the society. This argument presupposes that the consequence of the use of force by the police would lead to greater security and hence, deterrence of violence which leads to better quality of life for the people in this case, British citizens. The use of force by the UK police was born out of threats to public safety. Neyroud (252-253) outlining the history of the UK police force has argued that the baton-days before the 1980s was inadequate in protecting the public against public criminals such as in the case of the Hungerford Shootings and the Thames Valley where an armed man started to shoot in random killing two person and one injury. Hence, according to Neyroud (253), the public expectations of the police and the use of force has been a dilemma for the UK police- is the use of deadly force justified? Accordingly, according to the Thames Valley Police (1) argued that it is justified because it protected not only the police officers but also the public. This kind of threat cannot be allowed in a society because it lessens the confidence of the people on the police as well as on their own neighborhood. Hence, shooting a person who is out to kill others by virtue of the consequence of killing innocent people and police of ficers is justified because the death of the criminal would mean sparing the lives of innocent people and in the process restoring the peace needed by the greater number of people. Third, the use of deadly force by the police is justified because of the framework of defending ones self and defending others within the society. Within this frame, Kaufman (24) argues that the morality of people is subjected to a higher authority- in this case, the police force represents the society to which social contract is established among its citizens. According to Gentili (16), regulations are always backed with force- this type of force whether deadly or not is legitimate because people who have committed crimes to others and the society ultimately obliterate their human rights. Hence, in violating the rights of others and the public, criminals who are subjected to the use of deadly force essentially, forego their own human rights. Hence, while even the UN Charter would consider the use of deadly force as the last resort, it recognizes that political and judicial means are not always responsive in defending its citizens thus, the inherent use of deadly force in self-defens e cases are permitted (Yoo, 738). Consequently, the use of deadly force is more prevalent in the United States than in the UK because of the reason of self-defense. The use of deadly force is mostly applied to cases considered to be of extreme nature such as the murder of police officers, firearm robberies and homicide of the general population (Parent, 230). Within the consequentialism paradigm, the consequence of self-defense is morally justifiable because the police use of force is within the boundaries of their discretion- it is easier for the society to accept the shooting of the criminal who is about to kill a police officer or an innocent bystander than the police officer or the bystander being killed by the offender (Levy, 28). Similarly, consequentialism justifies the use of force through the argument that its use can deter the incidence of crime for the greater good of society. For instance, consequentialism is an agent-neutral term (Huigens, 944) that judges an action based on the value of a decision. For instance, if a police officer shoots a hostage taker, the police officer is essentially choosing between the life of the innocent hostage and the hostage taker. In these cases, the decision is weighed based on the value of the decision for the persons involved and the society in general. The dilemma for the police officer therefore is whether to risk the life of the hostage victim or take action and shoot the hostage taker. While negotiations in this type of situations are first used, the use of deadly force is considered as an important last resort if all things fail. As long as the police officer had exhaustive other means, then, the use of deadly force does not violate the protocols of police power a nd regulations in UK policing. Fourth, the use of deadly force is not used in the consequentialist theory sparingly but rather on the grounds that the consequence is still the best alternative. For instance, Paul Ramsey (144), a thinker who often concentrates on war issues rather backhandedly mentions the police when illustrating just war principles. Ramsey argues that the just use of political violence in warfare must include two principal elements: 1) a specific justification for sometimes killing another human being; and 2) severe and specific restrictions upon anyone who is under the hard necessity of doing so. Both are exhibited, says Ramsey (144) in the use of force proper to the domestic police power. Accordingly, police officers distinguish between aggressor, victim, and bystanders; and though an officer may hit some innocent party accidentally, it would never be right for him or her to enlarge the target and deliberately, or directly, kill any number (Ramsey, 187). Ramsey grounds this justification of such limited use of force upon what he identifies as social charity, in which the Christian, or anyone else for that matter, is called to love the neighbor by protecting him or her from the other aggressive neighbor who has chosen to become an enemy. Although Christians are called to love the enemy as well, Ramsey asserts that when choice must be made between the perpetrator of injustice and the many victims of it, the latter may and should be preferredeven if effectively to do so would require the use of armed force against some evil power (Ramsey, 143) In this way, Ramsey maintains that restraint in the use of force is still necessary in order to respect and, indeed, love the alleged perpetrator. While this is the only point at which Ramsey devotes any attention to the context of law enforcement, it is noteworthy that it is a pivotal illustration upon which he bases the rest of his work concerning the justification of war. The use of force often reflects an on-the-spot decision made by the police officer on the scene. The officer must quickly assess the situation and take proper action. So many factors may come into play that guidelines, restrictions, and laws may seem too vague to be of practical use to the officer; the use of force is thus difficult to control.(Skolnick and Fyfe, 38) Yet, with more and more precision and uniformity, most recent guidelines and laws attempt to check excessive force and provide assistance to police by admonishing them that they should use no more force than is necessary or reasonable or that such force should be used only as a last resort. In this way, they echo the language of just war thinking, with its fundamental posture of restraint. The final criterion comes under the heading of right consequences in an objective sense, which is the goal or end that is sought. This is usually justified in terms of the global common good. It ordinarily consists in bringing about a lasting peace, and also includes consideration of the enemys real best interests. In the case of police, Malloy maintains that they may use the full force available to them only when they are convinced that the common good is being served (Malloy, 14). Therefore, the most objective goal of any officer in a physical confrontation is to have an opponent cease and desist from further resistance (McLaughlin, 85 ) The test of such a stance is taking someone as prisoner or, in other words, arresting him rather than using more force than is necessary. The best interests of all, including the alleged perpetrators, are to be kept in view, thereby maintaining the overall common good of society. The use of force should be used only with the greatest restraint and only after discussion, negotiation and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. While the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every police officer will refrain from unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment of any person. Hence, the use of deadly force as a last resort by the police involves due process or procedural integrity that qualifies both ad bellum and in bello criteria. On this criterion, sufficient time should be allowed for processes of negotiation and the exercise of diplomacy. Applying this notion to the police predicament, officers should exhaust all other possible methods for controlling a conflictive situation before resorting to the more severe levels of force.(Malloy, 13) Only when all else fails should a police officer resort to a higher degree of force. Admittedly, this is an onerous call for the police officer to make in a tense situation, such as a domestic conflict. Yet, this is precisely why there is a need for clearer principles and rules, as well as prior training to clarify and instill them. Implications on Act Consequentialism and Rule Consequentialism Consequentialism contends that an act is justified if the consequence is greater than the product if the deadly force has not been committed. Police officers who usually fall into the dilemma of using deadly force can use the philosophical ground of consequentialism as a rationale or justification for their decisions. However, police officers should be cautious in doing so. First, rule consequentialism necessitates that the police officer considers not only the consequence of the action but also the regulations of the UK police force. In doing so, it is important that police officers studies the protocols governing emergency situations where the discretion of police officers is called upon to decide whether the use of deadly force is necessary or not. Cases have it that there is a very thin line separating the legitimacy or the rightness and wrongness of a police officers decision to use deadly force. Hence, police officers would need to quickly appraise the situation vis a vis the regulations of the agency. On the other hand, act consequentialism would consider that the use of deadly force is justified only if it is morally right and if the act maximizes the good. Hence, it is important that the consequence of the action would yield greater good than harm to the personsl involved. An important philosophical discussion in this would be, on what perspective would the consequence be considered as maximized? The answer would be to the society. The society is considered as the barometer of the goodness or the wrongness of an act. Considering the greatest consequence would be to consider to the fate of the society. If for instance, a police officer shoots at a person who is shooting randomly, the police officer would be more or less justified in shooting down the person in order to save his self and the innocent citizens. Second, rule consequentialism considers the use of deadly force as the last resort in dealing with emergency cases. For instance, in hostage taking, the use of negotiations and diplomacies are considered to be the primary criteria among the police officers. The use of deadly force is only considered as a last resort or when all other means have been exhausted and failed. Police agency protocols also calls for the same prioritization. On the other hand, act utilitarianism would consider the maximal impact of the act. For instance, if the act had greater value for the society, then, it is considered to be good. Consequentialism would consider that police officers are capable of fulfilling the training and the analytic requirements in order to make a morally justifiable claim or decision would be explored in the next chapter. References Kaufman, Whitley. Whats Wrong with Preventive War? the Moral and Legal Basis for the Preventive Use of Force. Ethics and International Affairs. Volume 19: Issue 3. 23-30, 2005. Yoo, John. Using Force. University of Chicago Law Review 71 (Summer 2004), pp. 729-345. Neyroud, Peter. Use of Force. Policing. Volume 1, Issue 3: 252-254, 2007. Gentili, Alberto. De Jure Belli Libri Tres (1612), trans. John C. Rolfe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), bk. I, ch. XIV. Levy, S., The Educational Equivalence of Act and Rule Utilitarianism†, in Hooker, Mason, and Miller, (eds.), pp.   27-39, 2000. Parent, Rick. The Police Use of Deadly Force: International Comparisons. Volume 79, Issue 3: 230-237, 2006. Huigens, Kyron. The Dead End of Deterrence, and Beyond. Wlliam and Mary Law Review. Volume 41, Issue 3. 943-957, 2000. Geller, W.A., and M.S. Scott. Deadly Force: What We Know. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1992. Kappeler, V.E., Kraska, P.B. and Marron, J.E. â€Å"Police Policing Themselves: The Processing of Excessive Force Complaints.† Paper, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Boston, MA, March 1995. Ramsey, Paul. The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility 144 pages, 1968. Skolnick, J. and Fyfe, J. Above the Law: Police and Excessive Use of Force, 1993. McLaughlin, V. Police and the Use of Force: the Savannah Study, 1992. Sherman, L. Ethics in Criminal Justice Education, 1982. Malloy, E. The Ethics of Law Enforcement and Criminal Punishment, 1982.

Andrew :: essays research papers

Andrew Jackson and his policies strengthened the new American nationalism. Through his actions during his presidency, he changed the nation into a more nationalistic country. Jackson was a man of the people, and he strongly felt that the common man was the power behind government. There were many different aspects that mirrored Jackson and American nationalism. Many factors, including his personality, his policies, his actions, and the way he mirrored American nationalism changed America into what become less of an aristocracy and more of a democracy to benefit the common man. Jackson was a man of humble background. In his time, a man that was born in a cabin was looked upon highly, and some of those with more noble upbringings actually apologized for not being born in more humble surroundings. Jackson was a brash, strong-willed man. He first got his fame in 1815 when he defeated the British Army at New Orleans with his untrained militia. Then in 1818, he violated Spanish territory without any authorization and hung 2 Spanish subjects for supposedly aiding some of the Indians that were being hunted. He lost the election for presidency in 1824, and claimed it was done so by a "corrupt bargain: between Adams and Clay. He finally got his presidency in 1828. Most of his votes came from the West and South. When he was in office, he made it clear that he would get his way. He was labeled "King Jackson the First" by some and he expanded the power of the President. He supported a strong national government and used his power to get what he wanted. He vetoed 12 times in his 2 terms in office. His presidency was one of violence, and a sort of monarchy rule. The second main point that Jackson strengthened nationalism is his policies while in office. Jackson firmly believed that the government should be restricted to become the "simple machine which the Constitution created". He was truly a man of the people. He also ignored many of the decisions made by the Supreme Court. Another thing was the Jackson had a strong personality and was well liked. However, I feel that many of Jackson's supporters didn't know where he stood on the views, but they supported him because he was a man of the people. He didn't make his view clear many times, but still received support from the people.

AIDS in the United States :: Research Disease Diseases Sexually Essays

AIDS in the United States Until the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, a rare, benign skin disease called Kaposi’s Sarcoma was almost exclusively diagnosed in older, dark-skinned men from Europe and Africa. Between 1979 and 1981, â€Å"Kaposi’s sarcoma had been diagnosed in twenty-six men, twenty in New York and six in California. Eight had died, all in less than two years. Only one was nonwhite. None was more than fifty-one years old; the mean age was thirty-nine. All were homosexual.† (Grmek, 6-7) The emergence of Kaposi’s sarcoma in the United States and its behavior aroused concern in the medical community. Atypical victims of an ordinarily non-lethal disease were dying in New York and San Francisco. Pneumocystis carinii, an unusual form of pneumonia, was also being diagnosed at the time in other patients. It soon became clear that the unidentified disease (AIDS) targeted the human immune system. However, the virus that eventually caused AIDS was yet to be isolated and identified. In 1983, through the combined efforts of the United States and France (laboratory of Robert Gallo at the National Institutes of Health and Professor Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, respectively), the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) isolation was achieved and the two nations shared the commendation. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute was recognized for the first isolation of the HIV virus and Robert Gallo of the National Institutes for Health was accredited with the ability to reproduce the virus and acknowledged for the invention of the diagnostic tests. (Schoub 9-10) The precise origin of the virus with regard to place and time is unknown. However, information about the origins of HIV is not pertinent to the control or repression of the disease. Regardless of whether HIV originated in Africa the 19th century or in the United States in the 1950’s, the modern suppression of the epidemic would proceed similarly. An anti-viral agent is designed to hinder a phase of the virus’ multiplication. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create an anti-viral agent for HIV â€Å"because of the overlap of the biochemical processes of viruses and those of cells, and it would thus be virtually impossible to design chemical agents that would be sufficiently selective to be therapeutically useful.† (Schoub, 159) Essentially, it is arduous to inhibit the natural processes of the virus without inhibiting the similar processes of the human cell. There are several different strains of HIV in existence and new strains are constantly mutating.

The Democratic Value of Whitmans Leaves of Grass Essay -- Whitman Lea

Early reviews of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass evince an incipient awareness of the unifying and acutely democratic aspects of the poetry. An article in the November 13th, 1856, issue of the New York Daily Times describes the modest, self-published book of twelve seemingly formless poems: "As we read it again and again, and we will confess that we have returned to it often, a singular order seems to arise out of its chaotic verses" (2). The Daily Times's identification of "order" out of "chaos" in Leaves of Grass parallels America's theoretical declaration of e pluribus unum, one out of many—a uniquely democratic objective. Also manifesting the early perception of the democratic poetic in Leaves of Grass, yet focusing more on Whitman and his content, an 1856 edition of the North American Review asserts, "Walter Whitman, an American,—one of the roughs,—no sentimentalist,—no stander above men and women, or apart from them,—no more modest than immodes t,—has tried to write down here, in a sort of prose poetry, a good deal of what he has seen, felt, and guessed at in a pilgrimage of some thirty-five years" (275). Here, Whitman is seen as the archetypal American, practicing the democratic ideal of human equality. The reviewers' awareness of order out of chaos and of the ideological American attitude of equality is a written history of the problems of nineteenth-century, post-Jacksonian America, for the presence of their observations, which celebrate Whitman's democratic vision, can only suggest the absence of that vision in American politics and culture. Indeed, the language of mid-nineteenth-century reviews of Leaves of Grass reflects nostalgia for the community focus of early Jeffersonian America, a focus that was fading in a cul... ...ca's Lyric-Epic of Self and Democracy. New York: Twayne, 1992. - - - . Walt Whitman. Boston: Twayne, 1990. Remini, Robert V. The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal, and Slavery. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1988. Southard, Sherry. "Whitman and Language: Great Beginnings for Great American Poetry." Mount Olive Review 4 (Spring 1990): 45-54. Warren, James Perrin. Walt Whitman's Language Experiment. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1990. Whitman, Walt. "After the Sea-Ship." Bradley and Blodgett 263. - - - . "As I Ebb'd with the Ocean of Life." Bradley and Blodgett 253-256. - - - . "On the Beach at Night Alone." Bradley and Blodgett 260-261. - - - . "Song for All Seas, All Ships." Bradley and Blodgett 261-262. - - - . "Preface 1855—Leaves of Grass, First Edition." Bradley and Blodgett 711-731.

Dr. Seuss “The Cat in the Hat”, Order vs. Chaos

Order and Chaos If you wanted to understand order vs. chaos better, one might look into the world renowned books of Dr. Seuss. His literature is not only clever and fun to read, but it also holds a lot of messages if you look deep enough. Reading one of his famous books, The Cat in the Hat, you can depict the Order vs. Chaos by looking at the Cat (Chaos) and the Goldfish (Order). The Cat at one point balances a teacup, some milk, a cake, three books, the Fish, a rake, a toy boat, and even his umbrella while he’s on top of a ball just to upset the Goldfish. The cat can be referred to as overwhelming Chaos who is despised by Order. The fish, though, is too paranoid and uptight while not paying attention to the fun in life. The fish is referred to as overwhelming Order. Now what’s the balance? Well, the kids are the balance. While overwhelming Chaos is trying to entertain them and persuade them to take part in his activities and overwhelming Order is trying to straighten them up as strict as possible, the kids do neither.The kids listen to both ideas, though, but do not take part in either. I feel Dr. Seuss showed his true creativity by symbolizing how too much Chaos or too much Order can become overwhelming and dominate someone’s life in a bad way and showing that a balance between both can be a healthy way to live. Works Cited The Cat in the Hat. Dir. Bo Welch, 8 November 2003. Perf. Michael Myers, Dakota Fanning, Spencer Breslin, and Alec Baldwin. DVD.