Tension Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Tension - Essay Example Stressors are the external stimuli that evoke physiological or behavioral change in people.† (Everly and Smith, 80) Coping with anxiety and tension was one of the most essential challenges I faced in my young life and, I swear, it was a meticulous task altogether to control tension and stress in my life. Being a very sensitive gentleman with great potential for personal achievements, I realized the need for making intensive efforts to deal with the issues concerning tension when it began to delay several personal glories. Therefore, I began to learn more about tension, stress and anxiety and the reasons for human tensions. I also made it a point that I practice some of the tension management methods which could be useful in dealing with the issue of tension and stress in personal life, and the ultimate result of all these efforts has been convincing to me as I noticed enormous changes in my attitudes as well as actions. Therefore, I hold the view that tension and stress managem ent is most valuable to human beings who are prone to suffer from the consequences of tension in life. As mentioned before, my first reaction to an understanding of the threats of tension in my life was to recognize or learn the factors which contribute to tension in human life, followed by an intense and determined decision to adopt measures to fight tension in my life. As I started analyzing the theories and literature on tension and stress, I came to realize that negative thoughts as well as undesirable feelings contribute greatly toward the mood of tense-tiredness. It was obvious to me that reducing tension in life was the essential answer to the problems I encountered in my personal achievements and it can also help one in getting away from the negative state of tense-tiredness. From the various case analyses available in the literature on

The Pazzi Conspiracy Essay Example for Free

The Pazzi Conspiracy Essay Abstract: On a sunny Sunday in April of 1478, assassins from the Pazzi family attacked Lorenzo de’ Medici and his brother Giuliano. Giuliano lay bleeding on the cathedral floor, and later bled to death. Lorenzo, however managed to get to safety—not a good thing for the Pazzi family. Up to this point the Pazzi clan had been considered one of the most noble and well-respected clans. They were financiers who â€Å"feared and resented the Medici’s swaggering new role as political bosses. † 4 This failed assassination attempt doomed the Pazzi family. The Medici’s put forth swift and brutal revenge. Each of the Pazzi family who had taken part in the assassination attempt was either hanged or beheaded, and the bodies were hung from the windows of the governmental palace. As if this wasn’t punishment enough, the Pazzi’s were forced to change their surname. Every remnant of evidence that the Pazzi family had once been a well-respected clan was wiped out by the Medici’s. 4 It was Easter Sunday within the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. The Priest was just bringing the Mass to a close, when assassin’s attacked the de’Medici brothers, Lorenzo and Giuliano, brutally stabbing them. Giuliano was stabbed a horrifying nineteen times, and the blood drained from his body right there on the cathedral floor. Lorenzo, however, was stabbed only once in the neck, a cut that apparently missed any major arteries, and he fought his attackers with all his might until he got free and ran away to hide. 5 Of course there was chaos within the cathedral, and some brave soul ran to pull the bell pull to send out a distress call and summon other Florentines to help ward off the coup attack taking place within the cathedral walls. Shortly thereafter every church in Florence was also tolling their bells, call the men of Florence to â€Å"defend their Republic.† Who were these Medici’s who had taken control of their government? It is believed that they were descendants of apothecaries—today’s pharmacists—and were relatively unknown in the 14th century. Giovanni Medici was the mastermind of the family and his business acumen and sheer boldness brought the Medici family from the shadows directly to the forefront of the political world in Florence. 6 Giovanni was one of five sons. He lived with their mother, a poor widow woman. A wealthy cousin of Giovanni’s acquired a position for Giovanni as an employee of the Medici Bank in Rome, and it was not long before Giovanni, demonstrating his boldness and business prowess, moved straight to the top in the bank, actually displacing his own cousin. Giovanni was a blatant risk taker, and began laundering money for Baldasarre Cossa, commonly known as a pirate. Giovanni even went so far as to put up the money to allow Cossa’s bid for the Papacy, and in 1410 Cossa was actually elected Pope John XXIII. Of course the former pirate felt obliged to reward his good friend Giovanni by making the Medici family the new Papal Bankers. Giovanni became known as â€Å"God’s Banker.† This turned out to be quite a lucrative venture for both parties involved—the former pirate, and the former nobody who rose to such a high position. The Medici bank received a hefty ten percent of everything the Church brought in. At this time in history there was a rather unscrupulous debt collection service run by the church itself. If people didn’t pay, they were promptly excommunicated, a very powerful motivator. Soon the Medici family were the third wealthiest family in Florence, much to the dismay of the older, more established families who saw the Medici family as money-grubbing interlopers. Giovanni Medici soon built an entire network of thugs and thieves who both demanded and rewarded unconditional loyalty. He set up the banks so the managers shared a stake in their bank, and even banned loans to Kings or Princes, as he felt they were absolutely the worst risks. He often advised his descendants to â€Å"Always keep out of the public eye—never show pride.† 6 It would have been better for all involved if they had taken this advice to heart. Giovanni’s son, Cosimo de Medici was trained from a very early age to take over the banking empire from his father. Cosimo was a dedicated learner, â€Å"studying classic texts, attending lectures and becoming one of the first generation of Humanists. Cosimo urged his father to turn the family’s wealth to civil patronage.† 6 When Cosimo inherited the position of Capo from his father, the Albizzi family, another wealthy, powerful, family made up treason charges against him out of sheer jealously and Cosimo was actually sentenced to death for these false claims. Luckily he bribed his way from prison and hid out for a while, later returning to Florence more powerful than ever. However, shortly after Cosimo returned, he was attacked in a dark alleyway and his attackers cut his face from ear to ear. He lived, but bore the scars known as â€Å"che brutta figura†, which translates into â€Å"revenge through humiliation.†6 Cosimo, much like his own father well understood how politics and power worked. His own advice to his heirs, which was much like his father’s advice to him was, â€Å"Do not seek power. Wait until they call you.† Cosimo had two sons, Giovanni and Piero. Giovanni was certainly his father’s favorite, and was obviously being groomed to take over the family business while Piero was sickly, and stayed out of the public limelight because of his ill health. Piero devoted himself to learning, and became well-respected as a diplomat. In fact, King Louis XI had such a high opinion of Piero that he gave him the specially bestowed honor of â€Å"permitting Piero to stamp the lilies of France on one of the balls of the Medici arms—this one ball colored blue for that purpose.† 6 When Piero’s brother Giovanni died unexpectedly, Cosimo began grooming his grandson, Lorenzo to take over because he felt Piero’s health was unstable and that he couldn’t handle the job. Piero had two sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano. Lorenzo, at the tender age of seventeen was well known for his courage and boldness, â€Å"single-handedly foiling a Pitti family plot to assassinate his father Piero.† 6 Lorenzo was indeed well educated in banking and diplomacy in order to follow in the family footsteps, but he apparently also had a lust for the other side of life; wine, women and song.   He married at nineteen and fathered seven children, two of them adopted. Lorenzo was a patron of the arts and promoted such artists as Bottcelli and Leonardo DeVinci, even going so far as to take a young Michelangelo into his own home and â€Å"raising him like a son.† 6 Lorenzo’s trademark phrase was somewhat different from that of his father and grandfather: â€Å"He who wishes to be happy let him be so, for of tomorrow there is no knowing.† Giuliano de Medici was Lorenzo’s younger brother, and shared Lorenzo’s passion for life. He fathered an illegitimate child in his youth, and when he was murdered on that fateful Easter Sunday Lorenzo later adopted that son. While Giuliano loved his older brother, there was also some natural resentment involved in their relationship. As for the Pazzi family, consider this heritage: â€Å"During the First Crusade in 1088, as Christian soldiers scaled the walls of Jerusalem, a fighter named Pazzo Pazzi was the first man over the top. Pazzo was often known as â€Å"the madman.† 11 As a reward for his courage, he was gifted three small stones from the Holy Sepulcher.† 7 The Pazzi were an old Florentine family, and two of the family members were even named in â€Å"Divine Comedy,† by Dante. There were also boasts of having a knight in each generation. The Pazzi arms which reflected their long and noble history contained â€Å"crescents, battlement towers and twin dolphins on a blue field with nine crosses.† 7 The arms represented Christian faith, generosity and freedom, and the Pazzi’s displayed it proudly. Andrea de Pazzi entered into banking in the fourteenth century. He was a sharp businessman and quickly amassed a fortune. However, being one of the â€Å"grande† names in the area they were excluded by Florentine law from participating in their own government. Because of this law, Andrea decided to relinquish the status of â€Å"grande† and give his own sons the opportunity to hold public office. 7 During a visit in 1443 by Pope Eugene IV to the Pazzi family, the Pope made a deposit of 4000 florin into the Pazzi bank, showing that there were â€Å"Papal accounts that could be pried away from Medici control.† Andrea left three sons, Antonio, Piero and Jacopo, all of whom were well-educated in the banking trade and all of whom held a large fortune and extensive assets. Jacopo was the only son who would live long enough to â€Å"become enmeshed in the conspiracy to assassinate the Medici brothers.† 7 Interestingly, however, Jacopo happened to also be a strong supporter of Piero de’ Medici, Lorenzo’s father. Jacopo was known throughout for his great generosity to the poor, and although he began as an observer, he eventually allowed his nephew, Francesco, son of Antonio, to draw him into the assassination plot. Francesco, Jacopo’s nephew was known as â€Å"diminutive, pale and driven,† but apparently he harbored great resentment for the Medici’s, in fact it soon became apparent to all that his hatred of the Medici’s had overtaken every aspect of his life, and even allowed him to conveniently forget that he was in fact related to the Medici through marriage. 7 This urgency that Francesco displayed, along with his intense hatred for the Medici clan became the driving force for the assassination plot. So, now we know about the Medici clan and the Pazzi clan. The other factor in this triangle were the Pope and his court. The conspiracy planned by the Pazzi actually had the blessing of the church because Pope Sisto IV â€Å"contemplated to demolish the dominion of Medici and for this purpose he sustained the groups led by Pazzi’s family which had replaced de Medici in the office of bankers.† Francisco della Rovere was destined from his very childhood for the Franciscan order. 8 On the death of Pope Paul II, he was elected pope and called Pope Sixtus IV. Unfortunately Pope Sixtus used his position as Pope to further his own family members by obtaining political appointments for them. When Lorenzo â€Å"refused Sixtus’ demand on the Medici bank for a loan of 40,000 ducats to purchase the town of Imola,† the conspiracy was set into motion. 8 Sixtus wanted to acquire the town in order to give it to his nephew, Riario. Girolamo Riario was the nephew of Sixtus and was one of the key plotters in the assassination attempt on the Medici brothers. Riario married the daughter of the Duke of Milan, and used this marriage to attempt to sabotage the relationship between the Duke and Lorenzo. â€Å"Riario fueled Francesco de Pazzi’s inner fire by intimating that the Pazzi family would play a large part in the next government of Florence, while coveting the future Dukedom of Florence for himself.† Archbishop Francesco Salviati was born into one of Florence’s most active political families and was related by marriage to the Pazzi, Medici, Vettori, and other very powerful families. 8 Salviati was a â€Å"flatterer, a gambler, and lusted for the power that could be attained through church favour.† 8 He easily became a co-conspirator in the attempted assassinations. Count Riario himself summoned Battista to meet with himself and the Archbishop Salviati. Salviati strongly persuaded the others to agree with him about wanting a â€Å"coup d’ tat in Florence, and Riario and Salviati then outlined what they considered to be Lorenzo’s evil intentions against each of them, telling Battista repeatedly that when the Pope died, Riario and his state would be in grave danger from Lorenzo. 10 Riario and Salviati finally bluntly told Battista that the only thing to do was to â€Å"cut Lorenzo and Giuliano to pieces, to have troops ready in secret, and to go into Florence and do this thing.† 10. Battista was reluctant, believing they were discussing something very big, and he wasn’t sure he wanted to become involved, but the other two were persuasive. Although nobody knew at the time, there were literally hundreds of mercenary troops settled firmly within the borders of Tuscany, â€Å"poised to invade the city at a signal that never came.† It was Salviati and Francesco de Pazzi who masterminded the plot to assassinate Lorenzo and Giuliano. Riario, always working behind the scenes, remained in Rome. Interestingly enough, the plan was hardly a secret, and was fairly widely known. The Pope reportedly even stated that â€Å"I support it—as long as no one is killed.† 11 Rather a silly statement when the plot is an assassination plot. When Lorenzo escaped the assassination attempt, he locked himself in the sacristy. â€Å"A coordinated attempt to capture the Gonfaloniere and Signoria was thwarted when the archbishop and the head of the Salviati clan were trapped in a room whose doors had a hidden latch.† 11 The assassination attempt had failed, and â€Å"enraged Florentines seized and killed the conspirators.† 11 Jacopo Pazzi was tossed from a window, and if that weren’t enough to kill him, he was finished off by the angry mob, then dragged naked through the streets and eventually thrown in the river. 11 The entire Pazzi family were stripped of all their worldly possessions, and every â€Å"vestige of their name effaced.† 11. Salviati, even though he was an archbishop was summarily hanged on the walls of the Pallazo. Lorenzo actually appealed to the crowd to show mercy, but to no avail, as many of the conspirators and even those only accused of being co-conspirators were killed. Lorenzo managed to save the nephew of Sixtus and two other relatives of the plotters, and the main conspirators were hunted down throughout Italy. During the assassination plot, Marsilio Ficino, who was the son of Cosimo Medici’s physician, became important in his own right. In 1478, largely as a result of the war which resulted from the assassination plot, the plague broke out in the city of Florence. Ficino published a very different sort of work; a practical guide to the treatment of the plague, and was written in Tuscan to be readily accessible to his fellow citizens. 12 This work went on to be translated into Latin and published â€Å"alongside Galen’s work on fevers, as a standard medical work. It is easy to forget that all Ficino’s works of profound contemplation and leisurely presentation were written against a backdrop of intense social and political disturbances.† Another player in this era was Caterina Storza, an illegitimate daughter of Galeazzo Maria Sforza who ended up married, at the age of fourteen, to Girolamo Riario, the nephew of Sixtus, and a primary player in the assassination attempt on the Medici family. Caterina came to be known as the â€Å"Machiavellian mother† in Machiavelli’s works. 1 Eventually, after the assassination attempt, the tables were turned and Riario was murdered by a group of conspirators in his own home, just after lunch. The murderous group then took Caterina, her mother, her two half sisters, an illegitimate son of Girolamo’s and her six children, captive. Although the aim of the assassination attempt was to get rid of the Medici family, and show Lorenzo in a bad light, the aftermath of the fateful Easter Sunday actually showed quite the opposite. Lorenzo had kept his head during the entire chaotic episode, and he would show time and time again as things progressed that he was intelligent and calm in the very worst of circumstances. When the conspiracy fell apart, Sixtus was furious and drew up â€Å"an ecclesiastical censure against Florence, withdrawing sacraments and the right to a Christian burial from all the citizens of Florence.† He excommunicated Lorenzo all on his own, which actually had little effect, so he formed a military alliance with King Ferrantes of Naples and began planning an attack on Florence itself. 3 The allies that had previously helped the Medici were not anxious to help the Medici fight the Pope, and even though it seemed there would be another disaster, Lorenzo’s â€Å"brilliant tact,† averted it. â€Å"Switching effortlessly from avenger to peace-maker, he personally traveled to Naples to confer with the King, and an understanding was achieved without resorting to war. From then on Lorenzo became known as the Savior of Florence.† Lorenzo followed closely the policy which was begun by his grandfather Cosimo. He managed to â€Å"maintain a balance of power between the five chief Northern Italian states, forming defensive alliances and thus keeping a check on invasions from foreign powers.† 3 The Medici Bank had been somewhat neglected since Cosimo’s time, as he had turned more and more to politics, and though Lorenzo did his best to turn this around, he found himself, for perhaps the first time in his life, in financial difficulties. To keep himself afloat, â€Å"he resorted to embezzling Public Funds, and it was this that later undermined his rule.† Although we have all been led to believe that â€Å"history belongs to the victors,† it is still very sad to understand that every trace of the Pazzi family, one of Florence’s oldest and most respected families, was wiped out following the attempted coup. 13 â€Å"The Pazzi coat of arms was torn off their buildings. A special governmental commission spent the next two years disentangling Pazzi assets with a view to confiscation. Anyone with the name of Pazzi was forced to change it. Women of the family were forbidden to marry in Florence, which was as good as not allowing them to wed at all. No portrait of any Pazzi adult is known to have survived.†   It is an entire piece of history completely destroyed as a result of one act. The aftermath of the Pazzi Conspiracy continued for many, many years after the event itself. As stated, Lorenzo became something of a hero, despite his embezzlement problems, and when he died at the young age of forty three, there was a â€Å"massive display of public grief and the entire population attended his funeral. He was buried in the Medici Chapel in the Church of San Lorenzo, where his brother Giuliano already rested.† 3 Lorenzo left behind quite a legacy however; his second son Giovanni and his nephew Giulio (the illegitimate son of Giuliano, who had been captured with Caterina after Giuliano’s death) were later to become very powerful popes, Pope Leo X and Pope Clement VII. 3 Works Cited 1. Hairston, Julia L. â€Å"Skirting the Issue: Machiavelli’s Caterina Sforza.† Renaissance Quarterly, Volume53, Issue 3, (2000) http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=printdocId=5001097598 (October 17, 2006) 2. History of Florence. â€Å"The Pazzi’s Conspiracy.† (2004). http://www.aboutflorence.com/pazzi-conspiracy.html. (October 13, 2006). 3. Lorenzo. â€Å"Lorenzo the Magnificent.† 2005. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-19-2004-53113.asp (October 16, 2006). 4. Martinez, Lauro. â€Å"April Bood: Florence and the Plot against the Medici.† Oxford University Press, USA; (April 1, 2003). 5. McClelland, Aaron D. â€Å"The Pazzi Conspiracy† (2005). http://www.3.telus.net/Quattrocento_Florence/pazzi.html (October 15, 2006). 6. McClelland, Aaron D. â€Å"The Medici.† (2005). http://www.3.telus.net/Quattrocento_Florence/pazziplayers-medici.html (October 15, 2006). 7. McClelland, Aaron D. â€Å"The Players, The Pazzi.† (2005). http://www.3.telus.net/Quattrocento_Florence/pazziplayers-pazzi.html (October 15, 2006). 8. McClelland, Aaron D. â€Å"The Pope and His Court.† (2005). http://www3.telus.net/Quattrocento_Florence/pazziplayers-pope.html. (October 15, 2006) 9. McClelland, Aaron D. â€Å"The Conspiracy.† (2005). http://www3.telus.net/Auattrocento_Florence/pazzi-conspiracy.html (October 15, 2006). 10. McClelland, Aaron D. â€Å"The Second Meeting.† (2005). http://www3.telus.net/Quattrocento_Florence/pazzi-second.html (October 15, 2006). 11. Pazzi. â€Å"Pazzi Conspiracy.† (2005). http://www.answers.com/topic/pazzi (October 17, 2006). 12. Rees, Valerie. â€Å"Marsilio Ficino Renaissance Man.† History Today, Volume 49, Issue 7, July, 1999. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=printdocId=5001275749 (October 13, 2006). 13. Walters, Colin. â€Å"A Florentine Family Tires of Medici Rule.† The Washington Times, May 18, 2003. http://www.questia.com/PM.gst?action=printdocId=5001929719 (October 14, 2006).

Halloween :: Creative Writing Essays

Halloween It was a dark and stormy Halloween night and Sal and Jess her best friend were at Sal's house for the night to watch movies. Knock, Knock, Knock, "Sal, someones at the door do you want me to answer it?", Jess yelled to Sal who was upstairs doing her hair in the bathroom. "Yeah Cool Jess its probably just some more annoying trick or treaters anyway", replied Sal. Jess got up off the couch and approached the door making sure to peer through the peephole to see who it was. All she could make out were two small dark figures so she guessed they were trick or treaters. She then opened the door just enough so she could have the latch on. "Grrrrrrr we are the creatures from hell", screamed the smaller of the two figures. Both the figures were dressed with a bed sheet that had obviously been painted black and thrown over their heads with just two tiny holes where the eyes would be. The other figure then said "whats it gunna be lady, trick or treat?" Jess opened the door fully now and beckoned them to come inside. "Just wait here", she said as she ran up the stairs and into the bathroom where Sal was still combing her hair. "Sal what should I give those two boys", asked Jess. "I dunno give them one of those chocolate things near the fridge", Sal replied. Jess turned and went back down the stairs into the kitchen to find the bars. "Are you still there boys?", she yelled. But there was no reply. Jess stopped and went back to the front door. To her surprise the boys had vanished and there was no sign of them. Fine she thought to herself at least it saves two more chocolate bars for me. Suddenly Jess heard a voice but she didn't know what it said or where it was coming from. "Is somebody there?", Jess inquired taking a huge gulp at the same time. "Yeah me", replied the voice in a strong tone. Arggghhhhh Jess screamed as she saw a tall man bearing a long sharp knife. Jess turned around and bolted back up the stairs as fast as she could. "Sal, Sal the...the...theres a huge guy with a knife downstairs", Jess stuttered. "What are you on about Jess?", replied Sal. "Im serious Sal there's a guy with a knife downstairs and he's 'gunna' kill us", shrieked Jess as the panic set in. Sal was begining to get worried now as she tried to think straight.

Hobbes Against Limited Government

Explain and discuss Hobbes' belief that neither limited government (where the sovereign is bound by laws) nor divided government (a system of checks and balances) is a practical possibility. Word Count: 2, 764 words In Leviathan, Hobbes imagines rational self-interested parties in a state of nature choosing among three alternatives: remaining in this state of nature; grouping themselves together under a government with limited, or divided, power and authority; or forming themselves into a civil society governed by a sovereign with unlimited power and authority. He contends, however, that the second alternative is basically illusory. Because of the constant danger of factionalism, civil war, and social disintegration in a group governed by a â€Å"mixarchy† with limited or divided power, such a form of social organization does not provide its members with sufficient security to really remove them from the state of nature. The choice of the parties, according to Hobbes, is therefore reduced to one between absolute sovereignty and the state of nature, and as the state of nature is â€Å"a state of war of all against all† Hobbes concludes that the parties would choose absolute government as the lesser evil. Absolute monarchy is the form of absolute government Hobbes prefers – as this furthers his political agenda of providing a means to resolve the civil conflict devastating his country – but nothing in his theory of sovereignty depends on the preference. In fact his concept of absolute sovereignty can be more convincing when not linked to a monarch, thus in this essay I will Hobbes’s former argument in isolation. Why is absolute sovereignty necessary? Hobbes's primary argument for the doctrine of absolute sovereignty is essentially an argument against right reason. Hobbes claims that any appeal to right reason or â€Å"the truth† comprises a completely inadequate basis for the resolution of disputes, because if disputes are about what the truth actually is, then appealing to these concepts – which cannot be identified without ambiguity or uncertainty – is essentially inconclusive and therefore self-defeating. Concern for the truth or right reason will not resolve isputes successfully or peacefully when people have entrenched and irreconcilable positions, because that is precisely the route to conflict and violence — â€Å"the state of war, of every man against every man. † Hobbes establishes that if each individual were allowed the liberty to follow his own conscience without constraint, then as such consciences vary, peace and harmony in the state would be short lived due to a persistent tendenc y to disagreement and civil disobedience. This diversity of consciences and the unrestrained exercise of individual judgment would render any common action highly uncertain or virtually impossible. Although men, according to Hobbes, are not political by nature, their association depends on an agreement to observe justice among men who disagree about who ought to receive what, thus they need common standards of right and wrong to regulate their affairs. Where it is impossible to obtain a unanimity of wills and agreement a common policy cannot be determined so, Hobbes informs us, an artificial will or person must be created and accepted. This â€Å"artificial right reason† introduces a public level of judgment that takes precedence over private judgments, so the problems of the latter are avoided. A sovereign may produce an incorrect answer which does not correlate with the truth, but the judgment stands â€Å"not because it is his private Sentence; but because he giveth it by Authority of the Sovereign †¦ which is Law. † Even if one believes that the sovereign’s decision is fundamentally wrong, civil disobedience is prohibited. That person has an obligation to obey, or face the consequences of the punishment power exercised by the sovereign. Thus, Hobbes’s sole and unique remedy for the â€Å"state of war against all† supports the concept of absolute sovereignty as a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of a genuine political union. A possible argument against this contention that states without an absolute government will inevitably deteriorate into a state of war is that there have been numerous small, so-called â€Å"acephalous† societies that exist for long periods without any stable leadership, law or politics in their daily lives. On the small scale at least these societies can get by with the laws f nature alone, yet Hobbes seems to suggest that their existence is impossible to explain. Scholars have suggested that Hobbes’s state of nature is peopled with the men of the seventeenth century, and his theory is designed around the problem of sustaining and policing a large and prosperous society, so this may not be a major defect, as acephalous societies tend to be relative ly rare, small and isolated. Hampton contends that Hobbes's argument fails to prove that people, as he describes them, would institute his definition an absolute sovereign. Hobbes proposes that the creation of an absolute sovereign is necessary to secure peace in the commonwealth, but the very existence of the sovereign is ultimately determined by the people as subjects. Thus, Hampton argues that the subjects cannot create a sovereign who meets the definition given by Hobbes — a ruler who decides all questions in the commonwealth and whose reign is absolute and permanent. Hence, it does not follow that peace and harmony in civil society can be secured and guaranteed by the adoption of Hobbes's scheme. Hampton’s argument is, I believe, a sound one and while it questions the likelihood of establishing an absolute sovereign, its relevance is limited here as the society Hobbes is writing for already have a monarch, which he endeavours to persuade them to obey. Why does Hobbes believe limited government is not possible? Hobbes sets out to demonstrate that civil society can only be truly unified when the state incorporates a single validating authority with clearly defined decision-making procedures, which can arrive at definite decisions and initiate common action — despite a divergence of consciences. Some scholars suggest that Hobbes requires a single human decision-maker and fails to recognise that a group of decision makers would have the same effect, such as a parliament with a set of clearly entrenched rules or laws. However, on a wider reading of his works, it seems to me that Hobbes believed in any form of absolute government – an absolute democracy, aristocracy, or closed oligarchy would also be feasible, so long as the power of the group is absolute. Hobbes’s assumption is that human disagreement is all pervasive; that the subjects of a commonwealth are incapable of reaching a unified interpretation of a constitution and, therefore, an adjudicator (or adjudicative body) will be needed to interpret the constitution for them. Such a body constrained by law would simply fail because laws, and the words which constitute them, can always be subjected to various interpretations. Therefore, some member of the political system must have the authority to determine what the law is with a clear, unambiguous and indisputable answer. Hobbes contends that if there is a power that is limited within a state, then it must be limited by a greater power. So the search for the greatest power in the commonwealth – the sovereign power – will be realised when we come to an ultimate power, that effectively limits all others, but which is unlimited in its own right. The authority that determines the meaning of the laws and can force obedience to those laws by all is effectively the absolute sovereign because the power to reach a final binding decision is located in it, even if that body regularly delegates power to another. So, for example, if the King is dependent on an assembly, then it is the latter body which is ultimately sovereign. In essence, Hobbes claims that a government comes into existence only with the appointment of a ruler with absolute power — a power that effectively transcends all others, and over which there is no appeal. Any authority with that standing and intended to perform that task according to Hobbes must be legally absolute, that is, unchallengeable in the name of any other legal authority. If the authority cannot enforce obedience to the laws by all, then they have no power, and the Government is not constrained by law. Why does Hobbes contend divided government is not a practical possibility? Hobbes believes a government limited by law is also necessarily divided, and this appears sound. Further, he contends that such a divided government, or a system of checks and balances where power is spread between various branches of government, is fundamentally unstable and will inevitably degenerate into civil war. A government with sovereignty divided among different branches was rejected by Hobbes in the following terms: â€Å"For what is to divide the Power of a Commonwealth but to dissolve it; for Powers divided mutually destroy each other. Once again Hobbes maintains that what destroys this kind of constitutional arrangement is the impossibility of agreement as to the interpretation and enforcement of moral rules or principles. The heads of all divided governments necessarily live in a state of nature with respect to one another. Each branch acts for its own self-interest, and with no common power ove r them, will transcend into a state of war with respect to one another. Each branch is assumed to behave just as humans would: in a state of nature, and exclusively motivated by their egocentric and selfish tendencies, civil war will inevitably follow. Hobbes believed a state to be an artificially organized whole run by a person’s mind, so it can be expected to behave as a body does (given that a body too is an organized whole run by a human mind). Hobbes’s vision is of a unitary state with one government run by a mind, or a group of minds, which will behave like a small organization run by a human mind. Problems with these arguments: History is against Hobbes, as in reality divided governments can – and do – work well, certainly they are no more unstable than some absolute governments. The United States of America is a paradigm example, despite the American Civil War of 1861-1865, few would argue that their constitution successfully divides power between the separate branches – parliament, legislature, and judiciary – who each act as a check and balance on the other branches to prevent the abuse of absolute power. It is also conceptually possible to have a limited government which is not seriously divided. New Zealand is close to this model – while the Governor-General has a power to veto laws, by convention this is never exercised. Where such limited governments rule, there seems to be no increased concern of the sovereign abrogating the laws. Both limited government which is not divided, and divided government, can work in a stable way as checks and balances on power effectively impose a minimum standard of competence and thought, which makes for more rationality (and less room for errors) by those in power. History therefore proves there must be an error in Hobbes’s theory. But this does not mean his entire argument is wrong, his theory may be adapted to cope with this development: it is not simply true that a state of nature between human-like actors is necessarily a state of war – for the latter to result the former also requires other factors, including scarcity (which does not generally exist for politicians, hence the success of divided governments). Hobbes’s argument presupposes scarcity between individuals, and it is also true that states may be in situations of relative scarcity with one another – so they too may drift into a state of international war. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that the collective action of members of governmental branches is not the same as individual action. It is too simplistic to argue that such branches behave just like giant robots or individual people would, as they are divided by the varying individual consciences of their members. For a group to behave like an individual its members must subsume their own desires and motivations to peruse those of the group, but there is no proof that primarily selfish people, as Hobbes defines them, would do this. In reality, branch members may be aligned with members of other branches – particularly as they are usually elected by each other – inhibiting a war between the branches of government. This analogy may also extend to the relationship between nations, which in the opinion of this author, are currently generally not in a state of war. The European Union has been remarkably successful at fostering commercial and psychological links between state members – so these hitherto competing nations no longer regularly engage with one another in warfare. Perhaps Hobbes would reply that members of the European Economic Community now exist as a single state, rather than individually. This is doubtful however, as the European Union does not have a collective military force, which Hobbes considered a necessary common power for a government. Thus, at least in Europe, there exist today states which are in a state of nature with respect to one another in Hobbesian sense, yet they are in a state of real peace. Problems with Hobbes’s remedy: Some academics have suggested that perhaps Hobbes’s remedy – absolute government – is worse than the disease he attempts to avoid – the state of war. Under an absolute government there cannot be respect for individual rights in the sense of a law protecting such rights that the sovereign cannot override. But Hobbes argues that if people accept the necessity of absolute government then there is no incentive for that government to systematically violate the rights of human subjects, as if people do not rebel then the government will have no reason to think their power is under threat. Vitally, Hobbes’s theory assumes the rationality of the sovereign, but there are intuitive reasons for thinking that people in powerful positions are not psychologically usual, or rational. Acton’s famous aphorism â€Å"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,† reflects the historical trend of powerful, aggressive and seemingly irrational leaders such as Stalin and Hitler. In Leviathan, Hobbes himself notes that people may object to exposing themselves to â€Å"the lusts, and irregular passions of him, or them that have so unlimited a power in their hands. His later argument that a sovereign who is already on a pedestal of glory will not desire even more seems dubious, and also seems to directly contradict his argument of a â€Å"general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. † Furthermore, absolute governments typically have am bitious foreign policy, Hobbes confessed this: â€Å"Kings, whose power is greatest, turn their endeavours to the assuring it at home by laws, or abroad by wars: and when that is done, there succeedeth a new desire; in some, of fame from new conquest. Maintaining a large army to succeed in battle will require heavy taxation and conscription, as Hobbes knew The Royal Government of France had implemented. Hobbes basic proposition is that obeying the government is the only way a peaceful life can be achieved. However, life might still be â€Å"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short† for people who obey their governments and are conscripted into armies with high casualty rates. The prospect of international war did not seem to concern Hobbes greatly – this optimism probably stems from his personal experiences of the English and French international conflicts, which were far less destructive than the interpersonal conflict observed in civil wars. Hobbes would have known of the incredibly destructive Thirty Years’ War however, and as modern technology has since vastly increased the possibility of international harm, in the opinion of this author, a constant state of international war is a major concern and if it inevitably stems from organised polity, then this is not unquestionably better than a state of nature. Conclusion The alternatives available when Hobbes wrote, given England’s political history, did seem to be only absolute monarchy or anarchy and dissolution. We now know that a middle possibility does exist, a sovereign body may be limited by something that is not a superior body: an elected body of men may enjoy unlimited legislative powers, yet face the possibility of dismissal at the next election. Hobbes emphasised that a government draws its authority from below; its subsequent performance can also be subject to periodic review from below. Electorates† are neither superior decision-making bodies, nor are they organised bodies at all – only all electors taken collectively. Yet their existence may effectively restrain sovereign legislature’s absolute constitutional freedom, thereby avoiding the Hobbesian dilemma that a decision-making authority can be checked only by a rival or by a more powerful body. In his autobiography, Hobbes states that the goal of publishing Thucydides was to â€Å"point out how inadequate democracy is, and how much wiser one man is than a multitude. † Hobbes clearly believed that democracy posed many threats to political stability. But it is probably an exaggeration to think of Hobbes as anti-democratic in a modern sense, in his day democracies – such as ancient Athens – failed to last, and seemed practical only for small states as they required active and continuous participation by the people in their own government. Hobbes should not be assumed to be opposed to the large modern democracies we have today, which he never could have predicted or imagined. References: Finn, S. (2006). Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Natural Philosophy. Cornwall: MGP Books. Goldsmith, M. (1966). Hobbes’s Science of Politics. London: Columbia University Press. Hampton, J. (1986) Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobbes, T. Leviathan. (1994). Retrieved on 02 April 2009, from The University of Adelaide Library Database http://ebooks. adelaide. edu. au Hopkins, S. (2009). Hobbes and Absolute Sovereignty. Retrieved on 01 April 2009, from Pathways to Philosophy website http://www. philosophypathways. com Kafka, G. (1983). Hobbes’s War of All Against All. Ethics (93)2, 291-310. Pigden, C. (18/03/2009). Personal Communication. Lecture: Philosophy 227/327. Rogow, A. , & Lasswell, H. (1963). Power Corruption and Rectitude. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Shelton, G. (1992). Morality and Sovereignty in the Philosophy of Hobbes. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Sorrell, T. (1986). Hobbes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Sorrell, T. (Ed. ). (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Springborg, P (Ed. ). (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watkins, J. (1989). Hobbes System of Ideas (2nd ed. ). England: Gower Publishing.

Like the Molave

MILITARY AIRCRAFT A military aircraft is any fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft that is operated by a legal or insurrectionary armed service of any type Military aircraft can be either combat or non-combat: Combat aircraft are aircraft designed to destroy enemy equipment using their own armament. Combat aircraft are normally developed and procured only by military forces. Non-combat aircraft are aircraft not designed for combat as their primary function, but may carry weapons for self-defense. These mainly operate in support roles, and may be developed by either military forces or civilian organizations. To control and maneuver the aircraft, smaller wings are located at the tail of the plane. The tail usually has a fixed horizontal piece, called the horizontal stabilizer, and a fixed vertical piece, called the vertical stabilizer. The stabilizers' job is to provide stability for the aircraft, to keep it flying straight. The vertical stabilizer keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side, which is called yaw. The horizontal stabilizer prevents an up-and-down motion of the nose, which is called pitch. (On the Wright brother's first aircraft, the horizontal stabilizer was placed in front of the wings. Such a configuration is called a canard after the French word for â€Å"duck†). The first aircraft flight was made by the Wright Brothers I 1903, it lasted only 12 seconds and covered 120 feet (37 meters) but it proven that a man could build and fly a heavier-than-air machine. In 1909, the first military aircraft in history was delivered to the Signal Corpse. This aircraft, like the original Wright Brothers’ flying machine, was a pusher-type design (its engine was behind the pilot and in front of the propellers) with a 30 horsepower engine, skids for landing, and room enough for a two man crew. By the end of the 1914, pusher-type aircraft had been condemned in favor of the tractor type design, in which the engine was mounted in the front of the pilot and behind the propeller. After that may changes were made in an effort to gain a bit more speed. Combat aircraft (warplanes) divide broadly into fighters and bombers. There are several variations between the fighter and the bomber, including fighter-bombers, such as the MiG-23, ground-attack aircraft, such as the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik. Also included among combat aircraft are long-range maritime patrol aircraft, such as the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod and the S-3 Viking that are often equipped to attack with anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine weapons. The main role of fighters is destroying enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat, offensive or defensive. Many are fast and highly maneuverable. Escorting bombers or other aircraft is also a common task. They are capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including machine guns, cannons, rockets and guided missiles. Many modern fighters can attack enemy fighters from a great distance, before the enemy even sees them. Examples of air superiority fighters include the F-22 Raptor and the MiG-29. WWII fighters include the Spitfire, the P-51 Mustang and Bf 109. An example of an interceptor (a fighter designed to take-off and quickly intercept and shoot down enemy planes) would be the MiG-25. An example of a heavy fighter is the Messerschmitt Bf 110. The term â€Å"fighter† is also sometimes applied to aircraft that have virtually no air-air capability – for example the A-10 ground-attack aircraft is operated by USAF â€Å"Fighter† squadrons. Bombers are normally larger, heavier, and less maneuverable than fighter aircraft. They are capable of carrying large payloads of bombs. Bombers are used almost exclusively for ground attacks and not fast or agile enough to take on enemy fighters head-to-head. A few have a single engine and require one pilot to operate and others have two or more engines and require crews of two or more. A limited number of bombers, such as the B-2 Spirit, have stealth capabilities that keep them from being detected by enemy radar. An example of a conventional modern bomber would be the B-52 Stratofortress. An example of a WWII bomber would be a B-17 Flying Fortress. Bombers include light bombers, medium bombers, heavy bombers, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. The U. S. Navy and Marines have traditionally referred to their light and medium bombers as â€Å"attack aircraft†. Air force missions require short-, medium-, and long range transports. The C-130 Hercules can haul up to 36,500 pounds (16,500 kg) of cargo, be readily converted into an ambulance, or be modified for special duty such as high altitude mapping, weather reconnaissance, search and rescue, flight refueling, ferrying fuel to advance bases, and ski operations in arctic regions. Military transport (logistics) aircraft are primarily used to transport troops and war supplies. Cargo can be attached to pallets, which are easily loaded, secured for flight, and quickly unloaded for delivery. Cargo also may be discharged from flying aircraft on parachutes, eliminating he need for landing. Including aerial tankers; these planes can refuel other aircraft while in flight. An example of a transport aircraft is the C-17 Globemaster III. A WWII example would be the C-47. An example of a tanker craft would be the KC-135 Stratotanker. Helicopters and gliders can transport troops and supplies to areas where other aircraft would be unable to land. Calling a military aircraft a â€Å"cargo plane† is incorrect, because military transport planes also carry paratroopers and other soldiers. Helicopters deserve special mention as military aircraft. They are unexcelled for rescue work and for delivery of people and material to otherwise inaccessible areas. Some helicopters are armed and serve as attack aircraft, providing gun and rocket fire against ground targets. Other helicopters deliver assault troops to advanced combat areas and supply them with ammunition and other needs. Special-purpose research aircraft are occasionally designed, assembled, and tested in order to experiment with advanced aerodynamic, structural, avionic, or propulsion concepts that must be validated before they can be applied to other aircraft designs. Research aircraft are usually well instrumented, with performance data telemetered on radio-frequency data links to ground stations located at the test ranges where they are flown. Several countries are developing vertical takeoff and landing. Experimental techniques include the use of wings that can tilt 90 degrees from the horizontal to vertical or any position in between, engines that tilt while attached to fixed wings, helicopter blades that can be folded and stowed while the aircraft is in forward conventional flight, buried jet engines whose exhaust can be directed downward of from the rear, and combination of all of these. As of now the high cost of developing new military aircraft has resulted in cooperative efforts among the various European NATO countries. Teams of designers from several countries have worked together to develop and build aircraft to be used by the armed services of all NATO partners.

Argumentative essay Essays - Emotions, Positive Mental Attitude

Argumentative essay Essays - Emotions, Positive Mental Attitude Professor Voll English 101: Freshmen Writing 12 Dec.2014 Desirable Future In todays world, it is rare that a great number of people spend their entire lives essentially going after something that is not meant for them, especially in the pursuit of wealth and careers. People often have the notion that those certain things will bring them happiness and satisfaction. However, after people receive these things, instead of feeling content, those people will ultimately feel a sense of emptiness. Society is money oriented simply because money is imperative for everyday life. Statistically speaking, there are several people who have an extreme interest in money and would commit to anything to successfully attain that money. Virtually, a lot of people intend to believe money will bring them pleasure, but in reality it often does not give people joy. Money can bring unneeded frustrations that cause stress, not happiness. In the long run, people will realize that the particular thing they were doing their whole lives is not meant for them because they wanted something else. In life, people forget that what they are truly after is happiness; joy is what people really want. After chasing money, people would eventually being to feel miserable because the money they desired was not what they really wanted out of life. For example, most people who win the lottery do not step forward right way to claim the money. They typically wait a few days to create a plan and think over wh at they will do with their money. The winners begin to notice that although it is an honor to win the money, it could lead to a vexation, potentially creating problems. If people win the lottery and do not use their money wisely, they may end up losing all of their fortune. Therefore, they will come to a realization that they did not desire to win the lottery because it causes many problems that people have to encounter because being a winner of the lottery involves a lot stress. It may not be meant for them due to their inability to handle the probable pressures that arise, leading them to the realization that winning the lottery may not be what he or she wanted overall. Feeling very happy is what people want to envision for their future. It is very important to be happy in the career that you choose; everyone wants to be able to adore their job, and everyone should be able to do so. Another thing that people go after is jobs. The majority of people anticipate that specific jobs will welcome them to a sense of happiness in their lives. On the contrary, this is not always the case. People will start to feel a lack of contentment with themselves. To illustrate, many people attend college to attain a quality education in a field where they can make a lot of money. Money cannot make you happy. An excessive amount of money is what most people think of when searching for a job. People usually attempt to get a career that will provide them a good income or a certain position. To be honest, people think that these things will make them feel on top of the world, as if it will make them completely happy. People could possibly feel joyful for a while, however the happiness they have is not considered to be prolonged. That sense of happiness will not last long. When people are never home to spend time with their loved ones or attend family activities, they have second thoughts about what is really important. If people continue seeking jobs that are going to give them a reasonable income or certain status only, they will ultimately come to an understanding that chasing that job was not the right choice because they wanted something else. What people truly want is something that is going to make them feel like they have fulfilled something in their life, oppose to feeling depressed. The best thing to have is satisfaction: a happy feeling because of something you enjoy not something you know was not honestly meant for you. In the end, people recognize and start to feel disappointed with themselves because of the

Free Essays on Youth And Crime

What is the "super predator"? He or she is a young hyper criminal who is committing acts of violence of unprecedented coldness and brutality. This newest phenomena in the world of crime is perhaps the most dangerous challenge facing society and law enforcement ever. While psychopaths are not new, this breed of super criminal exceeds the scope of psychopathic behavior. They are younger, more brutal, and completely unafraid of the law. While current research on the super predator is scarce, I will attempt to give an indication as to the reasons a child could become just such a monster. Violent teenage criminals are increasingly vicious. John DiIulio, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, says, "The difference between the juvenile criminals of the 1950s and those of the 1970s and early 1980s was the difference between the Sharks and the Jets of West Side Story and the Bloods and the Crips. It is not inconceivable that the demographic surge of the next ten years will bring with it young criminals who make the bloods and the Crips look tame."(John DiIulio, 1997) They are what Professor DiIulio and others call urban "super predators"; young people, often from broken homes or so-called dysfunctional families, who commit murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and other violent acts. These emotionally damaged young people often are the products of sexual or physical abuse. They live in an aimless and violent present; have no sense of the past and no hope for the future; they commit unspeakably brutal crimes against other people, often to gratify wh atever urges or desires drive them at the moment and their utter lack of remorse is shocking. (John P. Walters, 1997) Studies reveal that the major cause of violent crime is not poverty but family breakdown - specifically, the absence of a father in the household. Today, right now, one-fourth of all the children in the United States are living in fatherless h... Free Essays on Youth And Crime Free Essays on Youth And Crime What is the "super predator"? He or she is a young hyper criminal who is committing acts of violence of unprecedented coldness and brutality. This newest phenomena in the world of crime is perhaps the most dangerous challenge facing society and law enforcement ever. While psychopaths are not new, this breed of super criminal exceeds the scope of psychopathic behavior. They are younger, more brutal, and completely unafraid of the law. While current research on the super predator is scarce, I will attempt to give an indication as to the reasons a child could become just such a monster. Violent teenage criminals are increasingly vicious. John DiIulio, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, says, "The difference between the juvenile criminals of the 1950s and those of the 1970s and early 1980s was the difference between the Sharks and the Jets of West Side Story and the Bloods and the Crips. It is not inconceivable that the demographic surge of the next ten years will bring with it young criminals who make the bloods and the Crips look tame."(John DiIulio, 1997) They are what Professor DiIulio and others call urban "super predators"; young people, often from broken homes or so-called dysfunctional families, who commit murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and other violent acts. These emotionally damaged young people often are the products of sexual or physical abuse. They live in an aimless and violent present; have no sense of the past and no hope for the future; they commit unspeakably brutal crimes against other people, often to gratify wh atever urges or desires drive them at the moment and their utter lack of remorse is shocking. (John P. Walters, 1997) Studies reveal that the major cause of violent crime is not poverty but family breakdown - specifically, the absence of a father in the household. Today, right now, one-fourth of all the children in the United States are living in fatherless h...