Iago’s ego in “Othello” by William Shakespeare Essay

Sometimes there are people who are so evil and deceitful one can just feel dirty. Listening to them talk, hearing their words, and seeing their actions just makes one’s skin crawl. During the reading and the viewing of Othello it doesn’t take long to get this feeling about Iago. He is such manipulative, self-serving, and dishonest person; making it obvious he would be a man with a personality disorder. A narcissist is one who is only concerned about one’s self, manipulative, and will use anyone to get what they want. There is no doubt that Iago is the destructive villain in this play. Without Iago’s horrible traits and conniving actions this play would be very boring. He has been considered one of the most villainous characters of all time. Being around a person this evil is very frightening, they are able to accomplish so much with their manipulation. In this play there is no time wasted introducing the real characteristics of Iago. We see his self-servin g anger issues from the beginning. Iago is quick to mention his hatred for Othello (1.3.365). Iago’s ego has been hurt by Othello claiming Cassio as his lieutenant and passing up Iago. Iago feels that he has way more experience in battle than Cassio and just pretends to serve Othello until he can get his revenge (1.1.10-40). Iago mentions later that Othello slept with his wife, Emilia: â€Å"And it is thought abroad that twixt my sheets he’s done my office† (1.3.366-367). Roderigo is the first person to fall to his deceitful ways. Iago’s craftiness get Rodergio to trust him with his with his money; Rodergio says, â€Å"That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse as if the strings were mine†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . Iago states, â€Å"Put money in thy purse† (1.3.328) so that he might be able to win Desdemona’s love with gifts Iago will buy her. But the dishonest plan is here because he plans on keeping that money for himself. It is amazing to watch how quick and smart Iago can be with the other characters. He is able to quickly take a situation and find a way to use others as pawns to work his plan out. He is words and actions are so manipulative putting thoughts in others heads in order for them to assist him in his master plan.

How democratic is the UK Essay

It can be argued that Britain is both democratic and undemocratic; this can be shown via a range of issues relating to British politics and the society in which we live. The generally accepted definition of a democracy is a form of government in which the major decisions of government and the direction of policy behind these decisions – rests directly or indirectly on the freely given consent of the freely given consent of the freely majority of the adults government. There are two forms of democracy but the UK is run through an indirect or representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy, which relies on referendums and would be difficult in a large, modern society. Furthermore, the UK is a parliamentary democracy, the government and representatives are intermingled meaning that the UK does not have separation of powers, meaning that the executive, legislative and judicial courts all work together unlike the American Presidential system which could create a lack in communication. In this essay, I propose to argue both for and against and eventually come to a conclusion whether the UK is democratic or not and give a comparison between the UK and the US in terms of democracy. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ democracy but certain aspects are needed to make a democracy. A democracy needs a political system for choosing and replacing the government through frequent, free and fair elections in which people choose their leaders and to hold their leaders accountable for their policies and their conduct in office. Elections have to occur at regular intervals, as prescribed by law. Those in power cannot extend their terms in office without asking for the consent of the people again in an election. For elections to be free and fair, they have to be administered by a neutral, fair, and professional body that treats all political parties and candidates equally. All parties and candidates must have the right to campaign freely, to present their proposals to the voters both directly and through the mass media. A democracy also needs the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. To vote wisely, each citizen should listen to the views of the different parties and candidates, and then make his or her own decision on whom to support. Furthermore there should be protection of human rights of all citizens and a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Does the UK fulfill these four key elements? Yes, the UK does. Therefore we can say the UK governmental system. Democracy by definition means the government by the people. That means that all the people should be able to have their say in one way or another in everything that affects their lives. As said previously, the UK is run through a representative democracy but there are problems with a representative democracy. Representative democracy would be fine if the representatives would really make all their decisions only after consulting their constituencies. In the least, after having a clear idea about the views of their constituents on a particular issue, and trying to accommodate these views as best as possible. However, a vast majority of countries that call themselves Representative Democracies are not true democracies according to the above definition. Most of them are actually just Elected Dictatorships. People can vote usually only once every four or five years. They do not vote on any issues. They just elect their so called representatives who then until the next elections have no obligations by law and little incentives to base their decisions on individual issues on the wishes on their electorate. They hardly ever bother to consult them on their stands on various issues. Therefore, legislative bodies composed of such â€Å"representatives† can effectively act in a very dictatorial manner between the elections. So to meet the definition of democracy, a direct democracy must be in place, like in Switzerland. The UK is divided up into constituencies. Within these constituencies, are MPs for each political party. The first past the post system means that the MP with most votes (first past the post) will win power for their party in that constituency. In the UK voting system, we do not vote who is our next Prime Minister. Our vote goes towards the MPs for our constituency. In this sense, the idea of UK as a representative democracy is flawed as we as people are not voting for one single figure but for an MP. The reason for voting for that party may be influenced by the leader of that party but you are not voting specifically for that person. An element of Britain’s governmental system is that there is no written constitution. This means that, theoretically, the government is free to pass any legislation as long as they have the majority in parliament which could be easily achieved if the party has a large majority of seats. This means there is no safeguard for laws that can be altered or new ones that could be created. This is very undemocratic as the government therefore has too much power. The government is also in possession of other powers such as the royal prerogative that allows the prime minister to go to war without consent from parliament. An example of where this was used was the Iraq war in 2005, which was heavily resented by a large majority of the public. Even though this aspect of Britain’s governmental system is undemocratic, parliament generally prevents government from taking to much power.

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, 1911

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, 1911 What Was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire? On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out at  the Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory in New York City. The 500 workers (who were mostly young women)  located on the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors of the Asch building did everything they could to escape, but the poor conditions, locked doors, and faulty fire escape caused 146 to die in the fire. The large number of deaths in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire exposed the dangerous conditions in high-rise factories and prompted the creation of new building, fire, and safety codes around the United States. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company The Triangle Shirtwaist Company was owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris. Both men had emigrated from Russia as young men, met in the United States, and by 1900 had a little shop together on Woodster Street they named the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. Growing quickly, they moved their business into the ninth floor of the new, ten-story Asch Building (now known as  New York Universitys  Brown Building) on the corner of Washington Place and Greene Street in New York City. They later expanded into the eighth floor and then the tenth floor. By 1911, the Triangle Waist Company was one of the largest blouse makers in New York City. They specialized in making shirtwaists, the very popular womens blouse that had a tight waist and puffy sleeves. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company had made Blanck and Harris rich, largely because they exploited their workers. Poor Working Conditions Approximately 500 people, mostly immigrant women, worked at the Triangle Shirtwaist Companys factory in the Asch Building. They worked long hours, six days a week, in cramped quarters and were paid low wages. Many of the workers were young, some only age 13 or 14. In 1909, shirtwaist factory workers from around the city went on strike for an increase in pay, shorter work week, and the recognition of a union. Though many of the other shirtwaist companies eventually agreed to the strikers demands, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company owners never did. Conditions at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory remained poor. A Fire Starts On Saturday, March 25, 1911, a fire started on the eighth floor. Work had ended at 4:30 p.m. that day and most of the workers were gathering their belongings and their paychecks when a cutter noticed a small fire had started in his scrap bin. No one is sure what exactly started the fire, but a fire marshal later thought a cigarette butt had possibly gotten tossed into the bin. Nearly everything in the room was flammable: hundreds of pounds of cotton scraps, tissue paper patterns, and wooden tables. Several workers threw pails of water on the fire, but it quickly grew out of control. Workers then tried to use the fire hoses that were available on each floor, for one last attempt to put out the fire; however, when they turned the water valve on, no water came out. A woman on the eighth floor tried to call the ninth and tenth floors to warn them. Only the tenth floor received the message; those on the ninth floor didnt know about the fire until it was upon them. Desperately Trying to Escape Everyone rushed to escape the fire. Some ran to the four elevators. Built to carry a maximum of 15 people each, they quickly filled with 30. There wasnt time for many trips to the bottom and back up before the fire reached the elevator shafts as well. Others ran to the fire escape. Though about 20 reached the bottom successfully, about 25 others died when the fire escape buckled and collapsed. Many on the tenth floor, including Blanck and Harris, made it safely to the roof and then were helped to nearby buildings. Many on the eighth and ninth floors were stuck. The elevators were no longer available, the fire escape had collapsed, and the doors to the hallways were locked (company policy). Many workers headed to the windows. At 4:45 p.m., the fire department was alerted to the fire. They rushed to the scene, raised their ladder, but it only reached to the sixth floor. Those on the window ledges started jumping. 146 Dead The fire was put out in half an hour, but it was not soon enough. Of the 500 employees, 146 were dead. The bodies were taken to a covered pier on Twenty-Sixth Street, near the East River. Thousands of people lined up to identify the bodies of loved ones. After a week, all but seven were identified. Many people searched for someone to blame. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company owners, Blanck and Harris, were tried for manslaughter, but were found not guilty. The fire and the large number of deaths exposed the hazardous conditions and fire danger that was ubiquitous in these high-rise factories. Shortly after the Triangle fire, New York City passed a large number of fire, safety, and building codes and created stiff penalties for non-compliance. Other cities followed New Yorks example.

A Friend of Jims

A Friend of Jims A Friend of Jims A Friend of Jims By Maeve Maddox Theo Smith writes: I am often frustrated by what I call a double possessive. We seem to say and write friends of Jims not friends of Jim when the item possessed   is stated before that which possesses it. But when the possessor is identified first, we say, for example, Jims friends. Whats up with this? The double possessive appears in that of indicates possession and so does the apostrophe s (s) appended to the possessor. What can you tell me about this?    This double genitive construction includes both a friend of Jims and a friend of his. Its one of those English idioms that tries the souls of logic lovers, but it has been in the language for a very long time because it works. The double genitive makes it possible to distinguish between definiteness and indefiniteness. It also eliminates ambiguity. For example, theres a distinct difference of meaning between the following phrases: a photo of Daniel a photo of Daniels Although in use since Chaucers time or before, the double genitive attracted the attention of 18th century grammarians; their disapproval did nothing to stamp it out. Modern style manuals offer guidelines. According to the Chicago Manual of Style, The possessive form may be preceded by of where one of several is implied. â€Å"A friend of Dick’s† and â€Å"a friend of his† are equally acceptable. 7.29 The AP Style Book goes into more detail: DOUBLE POSSESSIVE: Two conditions must apply for a double possessivea phrase such as a friend of Johnsto occur: The word after of must refer to an animate object, and The word before of must involve only a portion of the animate objects possessions. Otherwise, do not use the possessive form of the word after of: The friends of John Adams mourned his death. (All the friends were involved.) He is a friend of the college. (Not colleges because college is inanimate). For a linguists take on the double genitive, read Mark Libermans Genitive Anxiety. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:75 Contronyms (Words with Contradictory Meanings)"Confused With" and "Confused About"7 Sound Techniques for Effective Writing

Mutually Exclusive

Mutually Exclusive Mutually Exclusive Mutually Exclusive By Maeve Maddox A reader asks, Could you write a piece on the use of the term â€Å"mutually exclusive†? I always get a little befuddled when someone says, â€Å"This and that are not mutually exclusive.† I have to stop and do the math to make sure I follow. The expression â€Å"mutually exclusive† is used in statistics to refer to events that cannot occur at the same time. For example, with $10 in my pocket, I go into a store intending to buy a battery and a jump drive, but each item costs $10. I can buy the battery or I can buy the jump drive, but not both. The purchases are â€Å"mutually exclusive.† Writers use the term when discussing subjects that seem to be so opposed in nature as to be incapable of coexisting but which, in their opinion, can in fact do so. For example: Feminism and Christianity dont have to be mutually exclusive. Interpretation: Feminism, which advocates the equality of the sexes, is being contrasted with Christianity, a patriarchal religion that teaches female submission. Privacy and Security Are Not Mutually Exclusive. Interpretation: Security, in the sense of government defenses that rely on surveillance and data gathering, is being contrasted with privacy, the condition of being free from public attention. Are Religion and Science mutually exclusive? Interpretation: Religion, which requires adherents to believe in events that defy the laws of physics, is contrasted with science, which insists on physical proofs before belief. The Germans don’t see brains and brawn as mutually exclusive. Interpretation: â€Å"All brawn and no brains† is an idiom that reflects the popular belief that athletic qualities and intelligence are not to be found in the same person. The statement, from a sports site, posits the idea that intelligence can be expected of athletes. Three other common expressions that use the adverb mutually to mean a reciprocal action or status are: mutually beneficial: good for both parties. Example: After 1940,  Mexico  and the  United States  slowly crafted a  mutually beneficial  relationship. mutually delighted: good feelings on each side. Example: By the end of their first term together, in the spring of 1874, it was  clear  that teacher and pupil were  mutually delighted.   mutually assured destruction: a state of hostility in which two equally strong opponents are capable of destroying one another in open conflict. Example: Fifty years ago this week the idea of mutually assured nuclear destruction was outlined in a major speech. But how did this frightening concept of the Cold War fade from peoples psyches? Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Expressions category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Passed vs Past"Gratitude" or "Gratefulness"?Supervise vs. Monitor

Question Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 3

Question - Essay Example gs about [her] own life, and that is the part that made [her] feel violated,† (contrasting with other arts that are iterative of her work, such as episodes of Law and Order or CSI, which just use her professional discoveries). Essentially, Lewis is saying that though someone has a right to use her professional discoveries, publications and so on in whatever way they like (these being public documents that she puts out as part of her job) there is something special about the circumstance of her life that belong to her alone, and no one should be able to use them without her permission. This is an argument that makes a good deal of sense. Surely the person who wrote the play wanted to be accurate about the life of someone like Lewis, but that does not mean they needed to actually steal instances from her own life. This speaks to lazy, derivative work on the part of the playwright – it would be as if someone who wrote a new play could not think of a new villain so simply wrote in Lord Voldemort or Darth Vader. Part of the magic of art is that it takes something that is creative and makes it feel real and authentic, and small personal details are an important part of making a character real. To simply steal those details from a living person is not doing your job as an artist. This play is not

The Role of the Uniqueness of the Holocaust in two Jewish religious Essay

The Role of the Uniqueness of the Holocaust in two Jewish religious responses to the Holocaust - Essay Example His priority is to document and explain the Jewish experience of the Shoah evaluating its impact on Judaism. Jacobs begins by describing the ‘holocaust’ as murder, debunking the historical connotations that word has of a ‘burnt sacrifice’. He prefers Shoah which means ‘total destruction’. He considers this to be an important distinction given that it was not Germans who were sacrificed, but Jews who were put to death. Jacobs refers to the Shoah as ‘unprecedented’ rather than ‘unique’. 'unprecedented' rather than 'unique'. It was Katz1 who first referred to the 'unique' intentionality of the holocaust, distinguishing 'genocide as the intent to destroy the national, religious, or ethnic identity of a group' from 'the intent to destroy physically all persons who identify with and are identified by a given national, religious or ethnic identity'. Denialists argue that this mystifies and removes the event from its place in history, denying the historical fact that others were subjected to similar genocide, and -- ironically - to make all those who experienced the Shoah less human. "those Jews who suffered did not think of themselves as victims of a "Holocaust." Nor did [they] use such terms as "Churban" or "Shoah," . Rather, one typically spoke about the "recent Jewish catastrophe," or the "disaster."2 Denialists claim that the original goal was resettlement in Madagascar or Russia; it shifted to extermination for expediency. What, they argue, is 'unique' about that Ethnic cleansing is quite common. Look at the Interahamwe of Uganda, the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries led by Karadi and Mladi, or the anti-independence militias of East Timor. American - Indian Ward Churchill views Steven Katz as a member of an exclusive tribe of Jewish historians who "argue the uniqueness of Jewish victimization" and who consequently "downgrade and shunt into historical oblivion" the suffering "not only the victims of the many genocides occurring outside the framework of Nazism, but non-Jews targeted for elimination within the Holocaust itself," specifically Gypsies and Slavs. Jewish theologians continue to disagree with the Denialists, since "it was never the quality of [the Shoah's] sheer terror or unlimited suffering that set it aside from other catastrophes but the meaning of this suffering, its causes and effects, what has been called the intentionality of the Holocaustt"3. Katz responds to Particularists (eg Jacobs) and Universalists (eg Denialists) as follows: 'the Nazi program of genocide, if understood as a war against a self-conscious Jewish identify, is neither unique in Jewish historical terms nor world historical ones'4 Further, 'Quantity and proportion are not sufficient by themselves to establish a judgment to uniqueness pro or contra'5 Why then do Jewish theologians believe that the Jews were intentionally treated differently from other proscribed races Hitler said; 'If with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of menby defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting the work of the Lord.'6 The Nazis dehumanized Jews and embellished their own rhetoric with demonic