William Shakespeares Julius Caesar Essay Example for Free

William Shakespeares Julius Caesar Essay Julius Caesar shows that people respond to power and glory in different ways. Discuss. William Shakespeares Julius Caesar has a strong focus on the response that various characters display to power and glory, and how and why this response may vary between them. Shakespeare shows contrast in response to superiority heavily throughout the text, and explains that peoples retaliation to it will always differ. Where focus for some, lies in the attainment and holding of power, others prefer a view of conserving Romes traditional government system. Contrast is seen strongly in characters views of Caesars death, and also in their opinions of the preceding events and Caesars gain of power. Despite these differing factors, all characters are portrayed to have some kind of lust for power, and intention to gain authority over citizens. These qualities are seen most strongly across the protagonists of the story: Caesar, Brutus, Cassius and Antony. Throughout the text, characters claim to oppose Caesars rule for the pure reason of conserving the traditions of Romes government and heritage, but some developments strongly suggest the ulterior motive of desire for power. The idea of [Romes] wide walk [encompassing] but only one man is daunting to Cassius, and he particularly portrays this throughout the play, joined by Brutus, claiming that the assassination of Caesar brings them peace, freedom and liberty. However, opposing this, Cassius states that he was born as free as Caesar and thus is equally deserving of power, implying envy or resent toward the omnipotence Caesar achieves. Brutus stands by his intention, emphatically signifying his part with the conspirators was not that [he] loved Caesar less, but that [he] loved Rome more. Brutus feels as though Caesars leadership would negatively impact Rome and the good that Roman citizens have achieved. In contrast, Caesar and Antony both claim that Caesars rule would be positive for Rome. Antony, as a strong supporter, stands by Caesar and claims that Caesar does have love for Rome, and would never have put the fate of Rome in danger. Although he states this verbally much later in the play, this is seen through Antony presenting the crown to Caesar upon his return to Rome from defeating Pompey. Caesar himself believes that he is worthy to rule Rome, and wants to gain the trust and support of the Roman citizens. He begins to do this by rejecting the crown when offered it, knowing that many people would be unhappy with the  acceptance of the crown, and the subsequent ending of the Republic, however it is evident that his intentions may change. When told to attend the Senate as the crown is going to be offered to him again, Caesar eagerly takes this opportunity, implying his desire. Although he is for the good of Rome, he still has intention to go against the system of government in place for omnipotence. Upon Caesars assassination, the opinions of many characters is shown to vary strongly, and this becomes increasingly evident as the text continues. Antony instantly ridicules the reasoning of the assassination, saying that he was not ambitious in the sense of gaining supremacy, as he was thrice presenteda kingly crown and he did thrice refuse, posing his said ambition to be questionable. This is a sign of his tranquility toward power and those who have acquired it, contrasting with Cassius, who feels it is unruly for Caesar to bestride the narrow world as the sole leader of Rome, and sees that this is fair reason for Caesars assassination. Cassius here appears to have desire for power, and to use Toward the conclusion of the text, upon taking their own lives, both Cassius and Brutus formally verbalise their views of their intentions in Caesars assassination, but they also have differing responses to what they have done. While Brutus seems to show regret over killing Caesar, Cassius seems bitter about Caesars death, with the claim that Caesar was revenged by Cassius suicide, as if to entitle him with the blame for his death. Brutus seems regretful, as he states that Caesar was killed with half so good a will than himself, saying that he is more deserving of death, and bidding Caesar to be still in his death. The protagonists views on the assassination drive forward the strong ambition they show to attain power themselves, and their feelings toward those who are in power. Opinions of Caesars success are heavily contrasted between the storys protagonists to emphasise how they see glory and fame, particularly comparing Antony and Cassius. Their views oppose each other, with Antony strongly supporting the success and rise of Caesar, where Brutus claims that Romans as underlings should be striving to go against Caesars reign, and change the way Caesar is leading. Antony focuses strongly on Caesars  leadership as a positive part of Romes society, and the love Caesar displays to the people. He signifies this by thrice [presenting Caesar] a kingly crown, and telling the people of Rome of Caesars great feats. Although the main contrast lies here, both Brutus and Caesar himself have their own opinions, both of which somewhat contrast with the views of Antony and Cassius. Brutus responds to Caesars reign by questioning Caesars character, and pondering the idea that Caesars crowning might change his nature, implying that he may become a worse person because of it. Caesar himself has a positive response to his gain of power, but soon it seems as though power soon goes to his head, and he begins to make rash decisions that regard the people of Rome more harshly. Each protagonist has a different approach to Caesars reign, and each character responds to his rise in their own individual manner. The segregation of opinions in regards to power and glory is contrasted in itself by each characters shared desire for power. This element of the text is seen at some times more strongly than others, as characters portray their emotions through private and public thoughts differently, and express more in what they think privately. Cassius, although seemingly for the good of Rome is described by Caesar to [have] a mean and hungry look, implying that he has desire for power, which is also seen through the implication of his bitterness and envy of Caesar when he claims that he was born as free as [him]. Brutus is probably the least power hungry of characters, although he still does desire power and fortune, as he claims he would not have it so with Caesar a ruler, yet he still [loves] him well. Antony seems to want the attention and respect of people in the assembly of Roman citizens more than legitimate power over them, and uses his public speaking and persuasive skills to achieve this, with his repetition of the phrase: Brutus is an honourable man to condescend and degrade him. Caesar is the most power hungry of them all, although does not seem it in his rejection of the crown. He wants men about [him] who are fat in the sense of knowledge, and content with the power they have, as he does not want anyone stealing his power from him. Each protagonist shares this lust for glory and prestige, and each in a sense gains some triumph throughout the text. Although there is a shared desire to obtain and hold power, the characters Shakespeare portrays in Julius Caesar depict the differing responses that many characters can have to the power they have, or the power those around them have emphatically. They may share some aspects of their reactions, or portray it in a similar sense, but overall, the characters views and opinions vary heavily throughout the text. Each aspect of the response characters have is seen in all four, but in each it opposes, as seen through the choices and reflections that characters portray.

beet lab :: essays research papers

MATERIAL AND METHODS Stability of cell membrane using pH For the lab experiment for testing the stability of beet cell membranes using pH, many materials were used as follows. Obtaining a beet we punch out cores, using a cork borer. After washing the cores we put each one inside a separate test tube, and added a different pH solution in each one. After 3 minutes in these exposure solutions, we took the beet out with a dissecting needle. Then transferred each beet to a separate test tube containing deionized water. After 20 minutes in these diffusion solutions, we took the beets out with a dissecting needle and discard it. We then stirred each solution in the test tube with a stirring rod, and transferred it to a cuvette. A spectrophotometer was then calibrated, and used to measure the absorbance of each exposure solution, and diffusion solution. Membrane Damage For the lab experiment for Membrane Damage, we tested the extract pigment and diluted it. When the pH solutions are added, this will cause it to be in a range of absorbance. We used materials as follows. Obtaining a beet we proceeded to cut small individual cubes. We then rinse each cube to remove any damaged pigments with deionized water. Using a blender, we blend the beets with 15 mL of pH 7 DI water. After blending we used cheesecloth to separate the liquid from the solids for easier centrifuge process. Then we put the liquid beet into a centrifuge tube and centrifuge it for 5 minutes at 2500 rpm. We then remove the supernatant into a beaker, and discarded the sediment. Using a 1:4 ratio mixture of the supernatant and deionized water, we made a stock solution. We then tested the stock solution’s absorbance with a spectrophotometer, and place 1 mL of the solution into separate test tubes. Next we added an additional 4 mL of pH solutions in the 2-11 range into each test tube. After mixing, we tested the absorbance for each solution using a spectrophotometer. Mixing the Diffusion and Exposure Solution For the lab experiment of mixing the diffusion and exposure solution, we are going to test if the pigment is released in the exposure solution. We used materials as follows: Obtaining a beet, we punched out 2 cm long beets using a cork borer. Then we wash the beets in running water, after that we prepared 10 test tubes each containing different pH solution.

Group Observation Essay

The group I observed was a teen dating violence prevention group. It was held at A High School. The purpose of this group was to educate adolescents about domestic violence. The facilitator’s goal was to teach the adolescents about healthy relationships, unhealthy relationships, types of abuses, various red flags of an abuser, and provide important resources for those who may be going through a domestic violence relationship. In the group, there were about ten members. They were all males and sophomores in high school. Their age ranged from 15 to 17 years old. The population in the group was primarily Hispanics. The group was held in a classroom during 5th period, which lasts about 50 minutes. Every Tuesdays, two facilitators from X Agency would go to the high school and teach two different class sessions. One facilitator would take all the females in one room and the other facilitator would take the males in another room. In the male group that I observed, the teacher was always present in the classroom. This was the facilitator’s first session with a new group of students. The facilitator, Kim, first started off introducing herself to the class. She spoke briefly about the types of services that were provided at X Agency. She discussed about the different topics that the students would be learning throughout the 8-week session in the program. Then, Kim asked the group if they had any rules that should be applied within the group. Many students were very responsive to Kim’s question. She then talked a little bit about confidentiality. She discussed about how everything the group talked about stays within the group, unless the person disclosed that he or she was going to hurt someone, someone was hurting him or her, or he or she is being abused. Kim told the students that she would be mandated to report those three things. Kim did an activity with the students where the students would have to come up with a food name that had the same letter as their first name. Kim brought in a variety of colored paper and the students were to choose one colored paper of their choice. On the paper, the students were to write their food names along with their real name and draw some things that represented themselves. Kim walked around the room and created conversations with some of the students. Some of the students were unable to come up with a food name. When this happened, Kim would ask the student what his name was and then ask the rest of the class for any ideas. The students were very approachable and helpful. This activity took about 20 minutes. Everyone participated in the activity and seemed to really enjoy it. After the students were finished with their project, they had to tape it on a large butcher paper that was placed on the chalkboard. Kim explained to the students that the reason she wanted them to come up with a food name was because it would be easier for her to remember their names. After that activity, Kim asked the group some questions about what they would like to learn during these sessions. She wanted to know some of the things that the students would be interested in or may have learned already. She told the students that this group was all about them, and she would do the best she can to take in their ideas. Some of the students asked if they could talk more about girls and understanding some of the traits girls have. Kim had a question box, where students would write down any questions, ideas, thoughts, or comments they have that sometimes they may feel uncomfortable saying in front of the group. It would be completely anonymous, and the facilitator would normally discuss about it the following week. Afterwards, it was time for the students to go to their next class. Kim had all the students drop in their index cards for the question box. Throughout my observation, I felt that the facilitator’s leadership style was in between authoritarian style and democratic style. In the beginning of the session, Kim’s leadership style was more authoritarian because she was discussing about the program and the agency. I noticed that when other people were talking, she would stop talking and asked the students if they wanted to share something to the class. Other times, if other students were talking amongst themselves, Kim would stop and let them know that she was not going to talk over them. As the session went on, Kim started to have more of a democratic style. She already had a whole agenda planned out for the session. After going over the classroom rules, she started becoming more interactive with the students. Within the group members, I’ve noticed that there were subgroups in the classroom. There would be a group of friends who would be having conversations with each other. Some other students were quieter and did what was told. Some of the members would shout out comments, and other members would start laughing. Some of the strengths of the group was that overall, it seemed like everyone got along. Also, since all the group members were male, they probably felt more comfortable talking about certain topics and issues. Another strength was that these students were already familiar with each other, since they were in the same class. Most of them seemed to be very interactive with each other. The area the group needs to improve on is learning how to have side conversations with their friends. Even though the group is for the students, the students should learn and respect others who are talking. They could try to have fewer interruptions while others are speaking. The facilitator’s strength was that she had everything planned out. She went with her agenda and everything seemed to flow smoothly for the most part. When the students were doing the food activity, the facilitator was very engaging with the students. She showed a lot of interest with what the students had to say. She also did a lot of active listening when the students gave her some suggestions and ideas. An area that might need improvement is the way she talks to the students. Sometimes I felt that she sounded more of a teacher rather than understanding the group members. Since there was a teacher already in the classroom, maybe the teacher should be responsible for the disciplinary and not the facilitator. My concerns for this group is that some of the group members may have taken a similar program before and might end up being disruptive to the rest of the members. Most of the students seem to know a lot about domestic violence, and they may feel that the program is useless to them. I thought it was a great idea for the facilitator to ask the group members about what sort of things they would want to discuss about in the program. The facilitator acknowledged the group members’ thoughts and ideas, which I thought was very important. Group work seems to be more effective than individual work in certain ways. In one study, a researcher wanted to find out about the creativity between small groups and individuals (Moore, 2000). He had small groups working together and individuals working alone. Within the study, groups and individuals were given the same two paintings to examine. They were also given a questionnaire, which had questions about the paintings. The researcher wanted to see which one would produce more ideas and creativity for the paintings. Results showed that the groups came up with more ideas and details about the paintings than the individuals. Since there were more people in the group, more brainstorming were involved (Moore, 2000). Martell and Borg conducted a study on individuals versus groups on behavioral rating accuracy (1993). Researchers were interested in seeing if groups working together would remember more than individuals do. The groups had an advantage over the individuals because more members were involved, which means they can compare notes. Also, another advantage for doing group work was critically analyzing a situation, and in this case, a behavior. Results indicated that the groups had a higher accuracy in answering the questions than the individuals. The main reason was because the group members were able to discuss about it and compare their thoughts, whereas an individual only had one idea (Martell & Borg, 1993). These are one of the great benefits of group work. More ideas would be brought upon and could also have other people think about a certain idea or situation in a different way.

Terrorism is not a derogatory moral classification;...

Terrorism is not a derogatory moral classification; rather, it is a mode of warfare. Terrorism is a tactic, yet it is a term used derogatorily to describe a certain group of people because of events in the recent past. Because of a sweeping generalizations about those that commit act of terrorism, terrorism has been turned into a â€Å"dirty† word to describe people, instead of the act that the word actually defines. Why do people decide to use terrorism as a derogatory moral classification? What causes them to, and how do historical events explain how this term became what it is today, an error of racial stereotyping, and why is it so important that people realize this mistake? Through the points in this paper, I hope to explain the historical†¦show more content†¦Joseph Fitsanakis, there is also a comprehensive list of things that an act must fit to be terrorism by being: pre-planned, organized, methodical, rational, involve threat or violence, the targets must be i ndiscriminate, it achieves something concrete, has far-reaching goals, and it must support political or idealogical views, and have clear objectives. If any act of violence lacks one of these characteristics, then it can not be terrorism. After 9/11, an attack on American soil that took 2,977 lives in a series of hijacked airliners crashes into two U.S. landmarks, terrorism was given a broader definition, which outside of its original context has been a word formed to describe mostly people from the Middle East, unike the definition of terrorism points out. Historically, it would be impossible for all terrorists to be Muslims, and fear or ignorance keeps educated people from making well founded remarks about those that use terrorism. While it is true that there are those out there that are both Muslim and terrorists, it is untrue historically that all Muslims are terrorists. The way terrorism is used to classify specific people groups Why do we believe that a person’s skin color makes them someone to be feared, when the thing to be feared is an ideaology undetectable by the human eye. Many people from mostly Muslim places all over Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia have predominant caucasian features that are practicallyShow MoreRelatedSSD2 Module 4 Notes Essay28478 Words   |  114 PagesElectronic Warfare Electronic Attack Activities Now that you have briefly examined electronic warfare in operational environments, let us look at the key subdivisions involved. EW is defined as military action involving the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum, or to attack the enemy. EW consists of three divisions: electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support. Electronic attack is a division of electronic warfare involving