The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
Not only does it point out the natural inclination of people to feel pain as a ripple effect rather than all at once, it foreshadows the suffering that Hester and Arthur Dimmesdale will undergo throughout the course of the novel. It also explains how Hester is able to handle such terrible things as public shaming without crumbling into herself. His use of words such as torture, rankles and extremity increase the sense of drama in this passage. Chapter 4 “The Interview” Page 30 “We have wronged each other,” answered he. “Mine was the first wrong, when I betrayed thy budding youth into a false and unnatural relation with my decay.
Finally, a cartoon about the Occupy Wall Street movement describes how the truth can mislead and warp meaning, thus creating perspectives that generate diverse and provocative insights. The role reputation plays is an idea that influences perceptions relevant to conflicting perspectives. In The Justice Game, Robertson accentuates his own perspective by juxtaposing the more progressive attitudes of his side of the case. Sarcastically, Robertson writes, referring to Judge Michael Argyle’s “novel campaign to end burglary by sentencing burglars to prison for life.”The word ‘novel’ provides sarcasm from the beginning, by discrediting Judge Michael Argyle QC, and pointing out that Argyle is a failed politician, ‘whose judgeship was a career consolation for the Tory MP he had tried several times to become’. Hence, Robertson’s perceptions influence the readers’ mind, which is exactly what he wants, and he continues to sway the reader’s perspective.
These good people, believing Pearl to be demon child (and with good reason), argued that their concern for Hester’s soul required them to remove this obstacle from her path to salvation. 2. Petty- concerned with narrow, small ideas. Hawthorne creates a petty tone in this passage because Hester hears about people among her community that wants to “derive her child from her.” Hester becomes concerned and thoughts flow through her mind, due to the fact she is scared her child might be taken away. Therefore Hester decides to take gloves to Governor Bellingham’s house, to have an excuse to talk to him about the things she has been hearing.
For example she uses pieces of dialogue in which one involves a commercial set in the 1950’s in which is believed to be “blatantly sexist” because it ridicules how people perceived and treated women in the 1950’s (Peacoke 302). This dialogue is thought to be sexist simply because it shows women being treated as inferiors, but according to Peacoke it is simply just making fun of how American culture perceived women in that era (Peacocke 302-303). All of these show how Peacocke uses logical evidence and analytical skills to demonstrate the true nature of Family
Today, she can’t get enough of the show. In her essay, she says the show crosses the line of indecency. She also states that “I believe Family Guy has its intelligent points, and some of its coarse scenes often have hidden merit” (308). She does go on to conclude in her essay That “jokes all have their origins, and the funniest ones are those that hit home the hardest; if we listen to Freud, these are the ones that let our animalistic and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious” (308). Peacocke describes just how the show has used its humor to talk about taboo subjects through humor.
Throughout the play, we can take notice of McCarthyism being illustrated. For example, the character, Abigail Williams, reflects Joseph McCarthy. Abigail’s reason is different because she blames innocent people of being witches to gain the love and affect of John Proctor as opposed to McCarthy who blamed innocent people of being communist, so that he could be re-elected for senator in the United States. An important aspect is if Abigail did not blame other people for being witches then she would have been blamed herself. The same goes for McCarthy’s case.
Knowing that the children might benefit from future legalization, it is safe to assume that this will only encourage more immigrants to come into United States illegally. In addition this act opens door to fraud. First of all anyone can apply for the DREAM Act. Second, because of the lack of documentation, it is very hard to determine the eligibility. In the New York Times Magazine, Mr. Vargas talks about the strategies and ways he used to lie – “The trouble with habitual liars, and Vargas confesses to having told lie after lie to protect himself from deportation, is that they tend to get too ?
The peevishness and irritable mood come off as a sense of anger to get us to feel sympathy for Premila and Santha. Analyzing the story helps us understand the author’s word choice for the discrimination of the Indian culture. In a sarcastic voice, “Oh my dears, those are much too hard for me. Suppose we give you pretty English names. Wouldn’t that be much more jolly?” (Rama Rau 114).
We’ve seen how military research has led to technological advancements such as SIRI. So far there is no proof that a decision to go to war was made solely to make money for the country. So does it matter if a few companies make money from oil or selling weapons? War means people will be killed, and seriously injured. The argument against war profiteering is that nobody should benefit from the suffering of others.