Iago in Shakespeares Othello Essay -- Othello essays

Iago in Othello  Ã‚      In William Shakespeare’s tragic drama Othello we see a morally depraved character, perhaps a very mentally sick individual, named Iago. His personality and development during the play is the subject of this essay. In Shakespeare’s Four Giants Blanche Coles comments on the mental illness that appears to afflict the despicable Iago: When such old time critics as H. N. Hudson, who wrote nearly a hundred years ago, saw that Iago was not acting from revenge, one is more than surprised to find modern critics, who have had the advantage of the progress that has been made in the study of abnormal psychology, accepting Iago for anything but what he is, and what Shakespeare intended him to be – a psychopathic personality. (79) Evidence of his psychopathic personality is seen early in the play. He manipulates the wealthy Roderigo into awakening the senator Brabantio (â€Å"Rouse him: make after him, poison his delight†); and then he utters very offensive smutty lines about a black ram and white ewe, which indicate the way his sick mind operates. He seems to be motivated by love of money which he has been receiving from Roderigo for some time (â€Å"thou, Iago, who hast had my purse / As if the strings were thine†). Iago himself says that he is motivated by revenge on the Moor (â€Å"I follow him to serve my turn upon him†) because of the promotion of Michael Cassio to the lieutenancy. But regardless of the question of motivation, it is a fact that Iago hasn’t a single true friend in the play; in his disordered personality he can only manipulate or use people; he is incapable of loving them. His manipulation of his general repeats time and again from the first meeting: Nay, but he prated, And spoke such scurvy... ...eps due on   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   To the Propontic and the Hellespont,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Even so my bloody thoughts, with violent pace,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Shall ne'er look back, ne'er ebb to humble love,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Till that a capable and wide revenge   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Swallow them up. (3.3) Iago is so in control of the general’s contorted mind that he specifies how the Moor should kill Desdemona: â€Å"Strangle her in her bed, even the bed she hath contaminated.† And the general dutifully responds, â€Å"Excellent good!† The enthusiastic answer causes one to suspect that the ancient’s psychopathology has taken possession of the Moor. WORKS CITED Shakespeare, William. Othello. In The Electric Shakespeare. Princeton University. 1996. http://www.eiu.edu/~multilit/studyabroad/othello/othello_all.html No line nos. Coles, Blanche. Shakespeare’s Four Giants. Rindge, New Hampshire: Richard Smith Publisher, 1957.

Ethics: How Should I Live My Life Essay

April 15, 2011 How Should I Live? Immanual Kant vs. Jon Stuart Mill In their works â€Å"Principle of Utility† and the â€Å"Categorically Imperative† the philosophers Kant and Mill have addressed one of the most prominent questions humans have asked ourselves since the beginning of time; what are the fundamental moral principles that we should base our lives on? My intent is to show how each of these philosophers in their approach this subject yielding totally different results. I will compare and contrast and ultimately determine which of their philosophies I personally find better suited to my own way of life. I will also point out when sometimes you can have circumstances when they do not contradict each other. â€Å"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure† Classics of Moral and Political Theory, 3rd edition p. 398). The purpose of the above passage is to define that the moral choice according to Mill. According to him when presented with a choice of actions to take, the correct and moral action is to choose the one which will produce in its consequences the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain in the world. To help understand his concept I present the following scenarios in which we would need to make a moral choice according to the above framework. Let’s suppose that while driving we are stopped at a traffic light and a couple of young kids ask you for a donation to help them make a trip to another state for their National Little League Championship. The outcome seems to depend on how much you need the money. If you were out of a job, struggling to make payments on the rent or food for example giving away your money will definitely decrease your own happiness more than it would increase the happiness of others. However if you have some disposableincome giving it away to the little league of baseball players would who need it more it would definitely increase their happiness, therefor increasing the total amount of happiness in the world as the Principle of Utility demands. Another scenario would be as follows. Imagine that you are harboring a fugitive that committed a petty crime but that you know without any doubt that he has the cure of a disease that currently kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. If this person gets caught by the police he would never have the chance to develop the cure. The police go to your house and ask you if you have seen the person in question. Now if you are following the Principle of Utility you have to consider the impact on the total amount of happiness each of the two possibilities, telling the police the truth or you telling them something else will bring about. If we examine what could happen if you tell the police the truth, we can see that the police’s happiness will be increased as the lack of pain from future victims of the fugitive’s crimes. But when we compare this against the happiness of the people whose lives will be saved by cure that the fugitive will be helping create we can see that in this case the greatest good will be done by telling the police that you have not seen the petty thief. In this case the long term effect of the decision helps make it a clear choice according to Mills. Long term consequences are also evident in the third scenario. In this scenario you find yourself witness of a horrible crime being committed, let’s say a rape. At first considering the demands of the Principle of Utility the choices are a little difficult to discern for if you choose to end the life of the rapist you are denying him much pleasure of the long term and causing him a lot of pain in the short term. Not doing so will also bring overall loss of pleasure by the victim and increase of pain would occur. Nevertheless if we consider the consequences of not only the short term but also the long term the death of the rapist would most likely spare many in the future from pain and trauma and preserving their opportunity for pleasure, and thus the Principle of Utility would demand that you take the rapist’s life to spare the lives of his victim and his other future ones as well. Let’s continue now to examine Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The first formulation of which is something that reminds me somewhat to the Golden Rule, â€Å"Do Unto Others as You Would Have Others Do Unto You. † (except the Golden Rule does not make for example a duty to be benevolent to others) â€Å"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. † (p. 851) Kant explains this by a series of example one of which goes something like this. If I run out of money I might be tempted to borrow some, even though I know I would be unable to repay it. I am acting on the maxim â€Å"Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back although I know that this will never be done† I cannot will that everyone should act on this maxim because if everyone asked for money but then would never pay it back nobody would believe the promise of the borrowers. A promise would lose its meaning. Therefore we could not borrow money under this circumstance as doing it would violate the categorical imperative Kant defines perfect duty as those which must be fulfilled under any circumstances and dictate a specific course of action; he defines imperfect duties as those which are more subject to circumstances and allow a certain degree of freedom in deciding how to comply with it. I see the difference between these duties as the one where are required by a society to function and those required by a society to be good and civil. Some actions are so constituted that their maxims cannot without contradiction even be thought as a universal law of nature, much less willed as what should become one. In the case of others this internal impossibility is indeed not found, but there is still no possibility of willing that their maxim should be raised to the universality of a law of nature because such a will would contradict itself. † He is trying to say that if it would be against o ne’s own interest for everyone to act on a particular maxim one cannot will the maxim to be universal as to make it universal it would go against one’s own interest. Let’s revisit the examples I gave earlier to see how our behavior would change if we let our actions be dictated by the Categorical Imperative. In the first scenario, whether to donate to the little league baseball team, it would seem that the fate of the team would be to never be able to travel as (assuming most of their finances come from donations) if people were never to donate to them any money, but none of that would prevent anyone who does have money from not donating to this club. This seems to indicate that donating to the little league baseball club is not a perfect duty. However it would be against one’s own interest for the whole world to be so stingy towards all little league baseball clubs or any other amateur sports clubs for that matter, so one could not will that to be the case and so donating to this club would be an imperfect duty. In the second scenario, whether to lie to the police about the hidden fugitive, following Kant’s Categorical Imperative is that one has a perfect duty to never lie, even in such situation. Let’s analyze that. According to Kant if everyone were to lie in an attempt to achieve some desirable result, even one as benefitting as saving hundreds of thousands of lives, the meaning of language would cease to be as people would start lying for anything they can think would be for the greater good at the end. The maxim in that case would be that you could lie as long as it was to save someone’s life (in this case the large number of sick people that would have been cured). If that maxim would become universal then we could no longer tell if anyone was telling the truth. Everyone would become untrustworthy communication between people would cease and therefore we would be unable to lie; in this case the categorical Imperative demands that we refrain from lying, even if doing so prevents from bringing about undesirable results. At the same time this still does not required us to always tell the truth; we can simply refrain from saying anything if telling the truth would violate another imperfect duty, and in my example it most definitely would since not speaking in this case (even though it may raise suspicion from the police) would be curing people of a disease all over the world a most noble imperfect duty. We can also apply the same line of reasoning to my third scenario, whether to kill a criminal to stop him from committing a horrible crime, in this case a rape. To allow killing to achieve a greater good would result in much killing all around, possibly resulting in oneself getting killed in the process and thus making impossibly for one to act at all. It seems that no one could will such anarchy to take place. Wecould modify the maxim here to say that killing is allowed if only to prevent another death, but what we are talking about ere is about the preservation of life, and as with the case of lying to the police, many people could by such a maxim feel themselves justified in killing others to achieve other ends that have nothing to do with stopping a crime. This would result in the anarchy described above so we cannot make it according to Kant a perfect duty but instead at least an imperfect one to not kill even when faced with the opportunity of preventing a crime. Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. † (p. 855). Here Kant states that if a maxim diminishes the freedom of choice of others, which he proclaims is one of the unconditional values of humanity, as a means to obtain other goods then that makes it an immoral maxim violating the definition of perfect duty. Anyone who uses deceptive or coercive methods to undermine the freedom of choice and action exercised by others also violates perfect duty. Looking at the first scenario again, whether to donate to the baseball club. If nobody donated any money it would not mean that you are using other people as a means to an end, you would be just ignoring them not using them at all, so donating is not a prefect duty as the failure of not doing so does not involve misusing other people. However refusing to donate to the little league is a failure to account for other people as ends themselves. People need to have means in order to exercise their will, so limited means makes it much harder for people to exercise their free will. Therefore if not donating would deprive them of resources, it would be a failure to account for the club’s members ability to freely act as an end of one’s own actions and so it makes it an imperfect duty to donate money to the little league baseball club. In the second scenario whether to lie to the police about the location of the fugitive, resource here is information. For an individual to act freely, he must have accurate information which means that if you lie to someone you are giving them information that is not valid thus not only depriving them of the resource they need to act freely but you are taking away the power they have to exercise their will. In this scenario lying to the police even with such good motive as getting a cure to a disease that will save hundreds and thousands of lives is to treat the police as a means to an end disregarding the right to exercise their free will. This make in this example a a perfect duty not to lie. However we can also see how there would be an imperfect duty not to tell the police where the fugitive is, for doing so would be a failure to take into account the fugitive as an end in themselves, getting caught and sent to jail would impede his ability to exercise his free will so according to Kant the correct choice in this case would be to refuse to talk to the police even when this would bring about suspicion and possibly further actions from the police. If we apply the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to the third example it seems clear that killing another person, even a rapist, would certainly limit his ability to exercise their own will, so the Kant’s second formulation would require as a perfect duty not to kill the criminal even to save another person from being raped. So as we can see when we apply the principles from Kent and Mills we find ourselves following different path of actions. In my first example donating to the Little League Baseball Club both Kent and Mills proclaim that donating is the correct choice to make. But when analyzing the second and third example their philosophies start to disagree as what is the right thing to do. The Categorical Imperative is more rigid insisting that we must not lie to the police and we must not kill the rapist as it is a perfect duty in all cases. The Principle of Utility in contrast allows more room to apply our rational to consider the consequences. It allows certain actions such as lying and killing if it is for the greater good. What is the correct moral framework on which we should base our lives on? Even though I find aspects of each these systems commendable I believe that neither system has been perfectly created. The Principles of Utility relies heavily on the consequences of one’s actions to flag a course of action as correct or incorrect. Only by looking our action and their consequences in retrospect we can truly determine if the course of action taken was the correct one. If we had the luxury of foreseeing all consequences then it would be a perfect system but since we always have to make decisions without knowing the ramifications of our actions and most times we only have partial information it does not seem that one should base one’s life solely on the principles that Mills dictates. What is needed is a set of rules we can use to adapt our actions to that will always produce the biggest benefit or the least amount of harm in the long run even if in the short term produces consequences that are not as good as other course of action. The Categorical Imperative at first seems to be a good standard for behavior but at the end of my analysis I do not feel comfortable with the absolute rules where by following them we can find ourselves in a scenario where one cannot even lie to save a life let alone kill to prevent it. It just seems too open for abuse with great benefits by those who did not obeyed the laws akin to what I think would happen if our right to carry arms was taken away so law abiding citizens would not possess any arms but the criminals would, putting the rest of us in a very precarious situation unable to defend ourselves. At the end I align myself a little more with Mills, I would like to think that if I ever in the situation of the last example I gave I would have enough courage to try stop a rape from happening and any action up to an including killing the rapist would be defensible in court, of course I would prefer to be able to stop it from happening without to resorting to such extreme measures. If the basis of a free society is the right to liberty and property then our duty should be not just to not impede others to have it but to also defend others when their rights to either are being taken away. I have a have a personal duty to defend those in danger and to give those in need and even if not everyone adheres to thesemoral guidelines we will all be as a society better off as the general happiness will certainly reach a higher level.

Operation Torch

Reasons for Initiating Operation Torch – – The Allies planned to occupy Vichy France to prevent the land from being occupied by Axis; the invasion would eventually force Axis powers to fight a two-front war; also helped to diminish transportation of supplies to Axis forces; Key Personalities (Involvements) – – General Dwight D. Eisenhower – – Jean Francois Darlan – – Andrew Cunningham – Objective(s) of Operation Torch – – Allies planned to team up with Vichy France in North Africa in order to take Tunisia before Germans could occupy it from nearby Sicily.After invading North Africa and convincing the French to join the Allies, American and British forces planned to head directly to Sicily, invade, and move up to the core of Europe. Victory here would also allow the Allies to clear up the Mediterranean of Axis forces for their own personal use. Important Readings – from Earl Rice’s â€Å"Strate gic Battles in Europe† . . . – page 24: The Americans joined their British allies. Roosevelt's military advisers wanted to build up immediately for an invasion of the European mainland later in the year or early in 1943.Churchill and his counselors declared that an invasion of the continent so soon would be next to impossible because of insufficient time to assemble the necessary forces and too few available landing craft in which to haul them across the English Channel. Churchill and his advisors did not want to risk a failed invasion. – page 25: Churchill instead favored extending operations in North Africa, where British forces were already fighting. he argued that seizing North Africa and beyond would introduce American troops to the action, boost American morale and appease Stalin's demands for a second front.But Roosevelt's advisors were unreceptive to Churchill's plan and suggested redirecting U. S efforts to the Pacific Theater. In June 1942, Churchill to ld Roosevelt that Britain was both unable and unwilling to undertake the invasion of Europe in 1942 or even in 1943. Having already been driven from Norway, France and Greece by the Germans, the British (now page 26) intended to stay the next time they landed on the Continent. – page 26: Roosevelt accepted Churchill's proposal. Torch’s primary objective was to take Tunisia before the Germans could occupy it from nearby Sicily.The Anglo-American invasion force in the west would then move eastward to link up with Lieutenant General Bernard L. Montgomery’s British 8th army, advancing westward through Libya. Together the 2 Allied armies would form a vise within which to crush Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s 100,000-man German-Italian army in Libya, including his vaunted Afrika Korps. But first they had to deal with the French. https://www. diigo. com/list/audreym96/operation-torch SOURCE and Earl Rices â€Å"Stategic Battles in Europe†; Even though Stalin required that the Allies attack somewhere in Europe, Operation Torch was successful: the Allies gained a wide amount of land and the Suez Canal was saved. So what’s the importance of the Suez Canal, huh? The Suez Canal provided a short sea route between Britain and Middle East oil supplies, and its imperial colonies in Asia and the Far East. It enabled the Allies to move supplies,men,equipment,fuel,and raw materials around the world to where they were needed much more quickly than if they had had to sail around the southern tip of Africa,which would have made them much more vulnerable to U-boat attack.Why the British cared SO much about North Africa? – When the second World War broke out, there were many soldiers from many different nations in Cairo. The Italians were there, but there were really no serious attempts to help Mussolini by them. The only real enemies in Cairo were the Germans. The British secret police watched them very carefully. There was a political r aid in which the British caught German spies that had come to Cairo with money, a radio transmitter and a house boat on the Nile.Because the English were unable to ship all of their supplies in from Britain, they trained and employed thousands of Egyptians in various trades. Some were mechanics, electricians, drivers, engineers and even lens grinders. They repaired military equipment and even built trains and machinery. Egypt started to weave their own cloth out of silk and wool. Advances were made in mining, cement, petroleum refining and chemical industries. In Egypt, the British spent over ten million pounds every year. In July of 1942, the British were pushed back almost to Alexandria.Rommel stopped at Alamein because his troops were exhausted and almost out of supplies. The British rushed to Cairo. Soldiers were sent to various places to train while other got ready to retreat from the city. The British officers went to the banks to try to get their money while at the British he adquarters, vital papers were burned. This scare changed Cairo to a point where it would never be the same again. Montgomery took over the Eighth Army in the desert and moved them to Alamein. He won this battle in October or November of 1942.After this battle, Egypt lost most of the fantasy and glamour that had been year during the years of occupation. Now the city settled down to the first order of business, national liberation. http://www. touregypt. net/hbritish. htm SOURCE ALGERIA AND MOROCCO – http://www. ushmm. org/wlc/en/article. php? ModuleId=10007303 Operation Torch, the Algeria-Morocco military campaign, began on November 8, 1942, and ended on November 11, 1942. US and British forces, commanded by American General Dwight D. Eisenhower, carried out this campaign.Three task forces landed on the beaches near Casablanca on the Moroccan Atlantic Coast; near Oran in western Algeria; and near Algiers, more than 250 miles to the east in Algeria. Although Vichy French forces initially resisted, a coup d'etat by the French resistance in Algiers on November 8 neutralized the French XIX Corps before the Allied landing. General Mark Clark, Eisenhower's deputy, induced Admiral Jean Francois Darlan, Vichy High Commissioner for North Africa, and General Alphonse Juin, the commander of the Vichy French armed orces in North Africa, to order French forces to cease armed resistance in Oran and Morocco on November 10–11. In return for his cooperation, Darlan temporarily remained head of the French administration as the French forces in North Africa joined the Allies. The Allied landings triggered the German occupation of the unoccupied zone of France and the rapid dispatch of German troops to Tunisia. To avoid capture of their Mediterranean Fleet by the Germans, the Vichy French scuttled it in the harbors of Toulon on November 27, 1942. By the end of November, the Allies had crossed the Tunisian border in the northwest.

Definition and Examples of Therapeutic Metaphor

Definition and Examples of Therapeutic Metaphor Definition A therapeutic metaphor is a  metaphor (or figurative comparison) used by a therapist to assist a client in the process of personal transformation, healing, and growth. Joseph Campbell attributed the broad appeal of metaphor to its inherent ability to establish or recognize connections, especially those connections that exist between emotions and past events (​The Power of Myth, 1988). In the book Imagery and Verbal Process (1979), Allan Paivio metaphorically characterized a therapeutic metaphor as a solar eclipse that hides the object of study and at the same time reveals some of its most salient and interesting characteristics when viewed through the right telescope. See Examples and Observations below. Also see: Thirteen Ways of Looking at a MetaphorWhat Is a Metaphor? Examples and Observations Where description is the main function of a literary metaphor, altering, reinterpreting, and reframing are the main goals of the therapeutic metaphor. In order to achieve these, the therapeutic metaphor must evoke both the imagistic familiarity of the literary metaphor and a relational familiarity based on a sense of personal experience. The story itselfthe characters, events, and settingsmust speak to the common life experience of those listening, and it must do so in language that is familiar. An example from a modern fairy tale might be The Wizard of Oz (Baum, 1900), which functions as a metaphor for the common theme of searching for magical solutions somewhere outside the self. The image of a wicked witch, a good witch, a tinman, scarecrow, lion, and wizard all depict aspects of the listeners experience as mirrored in Dorothy.(Joyce C. Mills and R. J. Crowley, Therapeutic Metaphors for Children and the Child Within. Psychology Press, 2001) Extended Metaphors[T]herapists can corro borate the aptness of a metaphor [by helping to] construct a chain, to assist in weaving an elaborate web of correspondences that tease out additional ramifications and add new dimensions. Rather than presenting metaphors of their choosing, therapists can try to emphasize the raw material presented by clients, and, if possible, use the lead established by them to spin out further connections. In this fourth manner, they can exploit a natural aspect of language, lexico-semantic cohesion, as a strategy to densely layer semantic associations in jointly constructed extended metaphor.(Kathleen Ferrara, Therapeutic Ways With Words. Oxford University Press, 1994) The Power of Storytelling[T]he concept of therapeutic story-telling . . . [emphasizes] the power of metaphor to slip past the defences of the conscious mind.Such practitioners have little acquaintance with literary historyotherwise they would surely have recognized that their therapeutic metaphor amounts to little more than a relabelling of the time-honoured genres of allegory and fable. What is new is their highly individualised focus. Therapeutic stories, they maintain, must be constructed specifically to suit the emotional dynamics of individuals.(Hugh Crago, Bibliotherapy and Psychology. International Companion Encyclopedia of Childrens Literature, 2nd ed., edited by Peter Hunt. Routledge, 2004)

David Koresh, Leader of Deadly Branch Davidians Cult

David Koresh, Leader of Deadly Branch Davidians Cult David Koresh (August 17, 1959–April 19, 1993) was the charismatic leader of a religious sect known as the Branch Davidians. During a deadly standoff in Waco, Texas with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), Koresh and more than 80 of his followers were killed. Early Years David Koresh (born Vernon Wayne Howell) was born in Texas to a fourteen-year-old mother. He never knew his father, who broke up with his mother before she gave birth. The young Koresh Howells mother later moved in with a violent and abusive man. When Koresh was four years old, he was sent to be raised by his maternal grandmother, but when he was seven, his mother got married and he went back to live with her and her new husband. However, he still attended religious services regularly with his grandmother, who took him to her Seventh Day Adventist church. As a teenager, Koresh struggled with dyslexia and was placed in special education classes. He was considered awkward and unpopular. He dropped out of school before his senior year of high school, and in his early twenties, he committed statutory rape, resulting in a 15-year-old girls pregnancy. He was later thrown out of his mother’s evangelical church after pursuing the pastor’s teenage daughter and saying that God had ordered him to marry her. By the early eighties, he moved to Waco, where he joined the Branch Davidians at their Mount Carmel Center. Within a year or so, Koresh was claiming to have the gift of prophecy. Sygma via Getty Images / Getty Images The Branch Davidians When Koresh joined the Branch Davidians, it is believed he was involved in a sexual relationship Lois Roden, the wife of Branch Davidian founder Benjamin Roden. Koresh said that God wanted him to father a child with Lois, who was 65 years old at the time, and that this child would be the â€Å"chosen one.† His interest in Lois soon waned, however, and in 1984 he claimed that God wanted him to marry a 14 year old named Rachel Jones. In 1984, Jones parents gave her permission to marry Koresh, who had at this point adopted the Koresh name (though he would not change it legally until 1990). After escalated infighting between Koresh and the Roden family, particularly Lois’ son George, Koresh and Jones left in 1995, along with 25 other members of the group. They moved to Palestine, Texas, 90 miles away from Waco, and lived in buses and tents for several years. Koresh used this period to recruit new members, not only from Texas but from California, Israel, and the United Kingdom. Following Lois Roden’s death., Koresh and George Roden found themselves battling for control of the Waco compound. George challenged Koresh to a spiritual duel of sorts, involving the resurrection of a corpse. Koresh took advantage of the opportunity to go to law enforcement and get George out of the way once and for all. He was told he’d need to provide evidence that George had illegally exhumed a dead body, and when he and seven supporters arrived at the compound, a gunfight erupted. George Roden was injured, and Koresh and his men were arrested. When they explained that they were on the property to gather evidence of abuse of a corpse, they were acquitted of the charges of attempted murder.   In 1989, George Roden was himself charged with murder after killing one of his own supporters with an axe (the man had claimed to be the true Messiah). Once Roden was sent to a psychiatric prison, Koresh and his followers were able to raise the money to purchase the Waco property themselves. Accusations of Abuse There were repeated accusations against Koresh of statutory rape and â€Å"spiritual marriages with underage women. Koresh claimed to have fathered children with several women and girls in the group; he said he had received a revelation from God, telling him to father two dozen children to serve as leaders once the Rapture came. There were also claims that Koresh and other members of the group were physically abusing children. One incident involved the beating of Koresh’s three-year-old son Cyrus. A lengthy investigation by Child Protective Services was launched. Michelle Jones, one of the alleged victims, was assigned a surrogate husband to throw investigators off the trail. The investigators ultimately failed to turn up any concrete evidence. Meanwhile, Koresh and his followers had begun stockpiling weapons, forming an â€Å"Army of God,† to prepare for the apocalypse. Koresh claimed to have cracked the code of the Book of Revelations and warned that the End Times were near. Shelly Katz / Getty Images The Waco Standoff In February 1993, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) went to the Waco compound to serve a warrant for illegal firearms and take Koresh into custody. The raid turned into a four-hour gunfight. At its conclusion, four ATF agents and six of Koresh’s followers were dead. This led to a standoff, which lasted 51 days.   Did You Know? In the years since Waco, law enforcement officials have spent time studying the failed raid and the standoff itself in an effort to determine what went wrong. As a result, several changes have been made to federal law enforcement protocols in cases of hostage situations.   Negotiators from the ATF and the FBI worked endlessly to end the standoff, and a few of the Branch Davidian members were able to exit the compound safely. However, more than 80 men, women, and children, remained inside.  The ATF and the FBI used tear gas in an effort to end the siege. In response, the Branch Davidians continued the gunfire. As a result, the compound caught on fire. A few people managed to escape the fire, but 76 were killed. Most died when the compound collapsed during the blaze, while others were killed by gunshot wounds, including Koresh, who was found shot in the head. It has never been determined whether Koresh killed himself, or whether he was shot by another member of the group. Nearly two dozen of the dead were under the age of 17.

Response to at least 3 student's postings with 2 references each Coursework

Response to at least 3 student's postings with 2 references each - Coursework Example Nancy’s post compares democracies in the United States and in Australia, identifying similarity in their governmental structures and administrative organization into states. It however identifies the Australian system as a constitutional monarch and the United States’ as a federal republic. I agree with Nancy’s post on federalism and people’s sovereignty in the American system as entrenched in the nation’s constitution (Wilson, Diiulio and Bose, 2012). Similarly, the writer’s idea of federalism and monarchy in Australia is valid (Robbers, 2006). Alfred explores Panama’s government system with the aim of demonstrating its level of democracy. The post further discusses similarities and differences between the system and the United States’ such as similar branches of government and roles of presidents. It however reflects differences in the nation’s legislature. I agree with Alfred’s post on the American bicameral legislative system (Wilson, 2011). The writer’s post on panama’s reliance on United States policies is also supported by the American historical involvement in Panama’s governance that indicates a significant degree of democracy in Panama (Harding,

Is there a connection between mortality and religion Research Paper

Is there a connection between mortality and religion - Research Paper Example But does religiosity translate into biological mechanisms which affect the rates of survival?—this is the moot question that remains to be answered by the researchers. The popular belief is the healthy body goes with the healthy mind. Only a moral/religious/spiritual individual can have a healthy mind. Religious practices are meant to combat the negative thoughts. In spiritual texts of all religions, one comes across parables related to long-life and such people adopted healthy practices in their day to day living. Physical wellbeing and religious belief is like the scale of justice. Both arms of the scale are equally important to get at the equilibrium. In one’s life, they must run like a train that speeds on two parallel tracks. Ralph W. Hood, Jr., et.al (2009, p.181) writes, â€Å"Some impressive research has examined the relationship between mortality and religious involvement†¦..The results showed that frequent attendees lived longer than infrequent attendees. Apparently, the former were more likely to cease smoking, engage in exercise, remain married, and maintain their social connections.† To put it in the terms of a laym an, a well-disciplined individual will live longer than a man with negative tendencies and habits. Brian Thomas in article â€Å"New Study Makes Connection Between Religion and Lower Mortality,† concludes that women performing religious service with regularity lived 20 percent longer than those who did not, as per the recent study. Some of the specific revelations in support of connection between mortality and religion are: Exodus 20:12: â€Å"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.† To explain this further, one who adheres to this commandment lives the disciplined life. Principle of God-fearing is a positive approach to life-situations and such positivity contributes to peace which is conducive to long span of life. Proverbs