Fathers and Sons - The Quarrel - Chapter 10 Essay Example for Free

Fathers and Sons The Quarrel Chapter 10 Essay Chapter ten begins with Arkady and Bazarov discussing Nikolai and his outdatedness, Nikolai consulting his brother Pavel about the same issue follows this. These two events barely fit into the same chapter as the quarrel that occurs next. Bazarov and Pavel have not gotten along since they met and share different views on basically everything. Pavel loathes Bazarovs nihilist attitude and Bazarov, being a nihilist doesnt care much for Pavels aristocratic nature either. They have both been burning to have an argument, especially Pavel who was just waiting for a spark to start a flame. When the conversation drifted to one of the neighboring landowners Pavel noticed his chance and uses this as a catalyst to start the conversation about nihilism and their different viewpoints. As the two men begin dueling it is noticeable how both seem to be trained advocates. Their questions are brief and their answers to the point and dont give away too much. Bazarov seems to not care less about what is happening whereas Pavel seems to be dripping with enthusiasm. Pavel acts as more of an interrogator than Bazarov and begins the argument by stating his opposing viewpoint of aristocratism which Bazarov mocks so plainly. Both men have their dignity at this point and although Pavel seems pressured not much tension is in the atmosphere. I do not share the same opinion, said Pavel igniting the debate. Bazarov then asks Pavel what can be proved about the supposed superiority of the aristocrats. Though Pavel does answer the challenge I feel Bazarov is trying to change the subject when he chooses to personalize the argument and begins to talk about what the point of all of Pavels trouble is. He implies that Pavel doesnt achieve anything in his life and so his aristocratic way of life has been a useless one with no progress. Although this is clearly personal to Pavel I dont feel as if Bazarov was purposely trying to attack Pavels life and ridicule it. Unsurprisingly Pavel is offended and retorts, losing some of his dignity. He makes another personal statement towards Bazarov saying that only ignorant or stupid people would live without the principals that aristocrats preach; he is directly implying that Bazarov is ignorant and stupid. This argument I feel was more of a personal statement made towards Bazarov rather than a good argument to debate over, however Bazarov retains his dignity and moves to another topic, naming a few words used in aristocracy and labeling them as utter nonsense. At this point I think Bazarov is winning the argument, as Pavel seems confused and temporarily overwhelmed by Bazarovs questions. But Pavel does do the right thing next by asking Bazarov what he feels should be done about the situation, but again Pavel adds another personal statement at the end of his argument saying that if Bazarovs views were put into effect the Russian people shall find ourselves beyond the pale of humanity, outside human laws. Next more of Pavels dignity is stolen as they describe to him exactly what a nihilist does and does not do. Turgenev clearly states that Pavel is overwhelmed by the definition of nihilism and what plans they have for Russia. In his view it is as if Pavel underestimated their ignorance. Bazarov says that at present time the most useful thing that can be done by the Russian people is to deny. To deny authority, principals, art, everything. I fail to understand how much can be gained by this, Bazarovs theory is that all that has been built must be destroyed in order to construct a new life which the people want. Although I feel Bazarov is running a better argument I dont agree with his philosophy and feel that instead of denying everything an attempt can be made at just trying to change what has been built instead of destroying it and reconstructing it from scratch. Pavel continues to lose his temper and his arguments get worse as he loses his dignity and begins acting childlike. To reply to Bazarov and Arkadys description of the Russian people he says No, no! I cant believe that you young men really know the Russian people, that you represent their needs and aspirations! No, the Russian people are not what you imagine them to be. They hold tradition sacred, they are a patriarchal people, they cannot live without faith . . . This sentence with its abundance of nos sounds very childlike and most of it seems as if Pavel is trying to tell himself rather than the others that what they say is not true. Bazarov still contains full dignity and as adultly as possible agrees to ease Pavel, but he still refuses to admit if he is wrong. Then he states that although Pavel may be right it still proves nothing. His next argument is basic, but effective, Pavel says that in that case Bazarov must be going against his own people and Bazarov replies with an analogy that implies that according to Pavel if the majority of the people do something utterly stupid he must do so as well. Pavel ignores the last argument made by Bazarov and instead chooses to retaliate by attacking Bazarov by saying he is not part of the Russian people after he opposes them in so many ways. Bazarov handles this argument simply by referring to the most Russian people he knows, the peasants, who have knowledge of the past peasants who have risen and become of higher status now. Bazarov, as we have seen earlier in the book, talks to the peasants and doesnt mind answering their questions and talking to them. Although he may look down on them and not think much of them he still treats them like people and so they will obviously support him on this one so Pavel made bad move by challenging how Russian Bazarov is as he has more to show for it than Pavel. But again I do feel that comparing Pavel to himself was unnecessary and just made the argument more personal again. There is a short break in the chapter as Nikolai stands up and tries to cool the two down asking them not to make this personal. He is a bit late. With Nikolais interference Pavel has a chance to compose himself and regain some of the dignity he had had before. They start to discuss nihilism once again with a cooler and less tense atmosphere. Bazarov gives another definition for nihilism, this time focusing more on their actions as a group. They then begin to talk about the strength of the nihilists, which Pavel is proved to have underestimated. I agree with Bazarovs view here that a large number is not needed, but rather a stronger faith or force in what they are doing as the truth to be stronger then a large number. Although slightly irrelevant Bazarovs analogy to a single candle burning down the whole of Moscow, I feel was a strong argument. Pavel seems to lose his dignity along with the argument as he again starts acting restless and angered. Pavel then loses all dignity when he starts to be sarcastic saying Bravo, bravo! and trying to make what Bazarov is saying foolish by pretending to acknowledge it. His loss of dignity is made clear with Bazarovs statement You have departed from your praiseworthy sense of personal dignity and with this Bazarov chooses to close the argument, but not without his closing sentence in which he asks Pavel to think of institutions where the aristocracy has had an outcome of no problems. Pavel attempts to name a few but is proven wrong by Bazarov for his attempts. Bazarov once again asks Pavel to take his time and think about it; with this he takes his leave and the discussion comes to an end. Bazarov is clearly a powerful advocate who can maintain his dignity even when he is criticized and although many people oppose his views he has managed to keep his views alive. Pavel, although a good attempt would make a weaker advocate, his weaknesses lie in his quick temper. Maintaining your cool is very important and Bazarov proved that, he left the argument with all his dignity and my vote as the winner whereas Pavel was left tongue-tied and labeled as the loser.

Traditions in A Moment Before the Gun Went Off and The Lottery :: Shirley Jackson Lottery

In the stories "A Moment before The Gun Went Off" and "The Lottery," there is the situation in which a group of people cling to traditions very blindly. In both stories the traditions are so dug into the people's way of life that questioning them is considered sacrilege within these communities. Furthermore, the members of the community no longer even remember why the traditions were set up in the fist place. They follow the traditions simply because their predecessors followed the traditions. Another similarity between the communities in both stories is, even though these traditions are firmly entrenched in these communities, they are rapidly losing there grip in other communities. This detail is not only mentioned in both stories, but looked down upon by communities that still follow the traditions. In the story "The Lottery," the tradition is to hold a lottery on a specific summer day, but instead of winning a cash prize or some other good thing, the winner gets to be stoned to death by the members of the community. The character that is mentioned most in this story is one by the name of Mrs. Hutchinson. Mrs. Hutchinson is a devoted mother and housewife. She is the one who eventually gets singled out to win the lottery. So it is Mrs. Hutchinson who is impacted the most brutally by the lottery. However the other people of the village are affected differently by the lottery. It is very unlikely that the people of the village kill people for the sake of killing people. More likely there is a deeper reason. One possibility is that the people of this village of this village are looking for a scapegoat. A person to take the blame for mistakes and sins of others, so one person dies for a community and saves the community from whatever sins that had been committed. The society can be affected in many ways by the lottery. Other neighbor societies have been affected by the lottery, many have abandoned the tradition of the lottery. Even in the community where the story takes place many of the rituals that go along with the lottery are fading into the past to be forgotten forever. An example of this would be the chant that originally went with the

The Patriot Act

After the United States was attacked in the infamous 9/11 episode, the United States enacted the United States of 2001 on October 24, 2001 (Mil Net, 2001). The law was passed without any objections to the passage of the law, and was signed by President Bush on October 26 of the same year (Encarta, 2008). The Patriot Act is considered as the centerpiece legislation of the United States' response to the September 11, 2001 tragedy (John Gamboa, 2008).The law by its defintion is a tool that aims to strengthen the instruments of the law enforcement arms of the state, especially its police and prosecutin arms, with the goal of preventing attacks of this kind in the future (Encarta, 2008). The act itself lays out specific rules on surveillance, intelligence gathering and sharing among law enforcement units, money laundering, security at entrance and exit points of the country and criminal law among others (Gamboa, 2008).In conjuction with the applicability of other statutes, has in fact giv en more foundation to the civil freedoms and rights of people (Paul Rosenweig, Alane Kochems & James Jay Carafano, 2004). To prevent abuse, the Act has been one of the most extensive reporting procedures attached on any law (Rosenweig, Kochems & Carafano, 2004). But the question lies not in the benefits, but whether the law should be encated as is, with amendments or totally scrapped. Many critics of the Act have demonized the legislation as an instrument of abuse and a threat to individual rights (Paul Rosenweig, 2004).In the lifetime of the Act, many of the provisions in the law have either been amended, changed and re-worded to effect changes in the law to make it adapt to broader changes to attain less then defined and specific goals (Gamboa, 2008). But after all the smoke of critcism has cleared, one thing is still evident, the Act is still a very important tool in the fight against terrorism (Rosenweig, 2004). In the past, law enforcement groups were limited in the amount and quality of information that they could pass on to each other. The Act virtually did away with that limitation (Rosenweig, 2004).In this light, a majority of Americans, about 60 percent, are in favor of re-enacting that Act, but oppose any additional powers given to entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, like access to electronic mail, issuing subpoenas (Gary Langer, 2005) and to limit the access or rights of immigrants on U. S soil (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2005). Congress, basing on the utility of the Act, must enact the Act, subject to thorough study and discussion. Under the current ambit of the law, it is the people of the United States that are more apprehensive of the law than the intended terrorist targets (Gamboa, 2008).Many of the oppositors of the Act even claim that the law was just a cover for some law enforcement agencies to obtain the new expanded powers in the Act (Encarta, 2008). But again, the law and its effects would be more beneficial than the percieved threats to the citizenry (Rosenweig, Kochems & Carafano, 2004). And that is where the powers and wisdom of the members of Congress must step in to review and take action against the threats that the Act has seemed to conjure up (Rosenweig, Kochems & Carafano, 2004). References Gamboa, J. B. (2008, September 11). The Patriot Act.The Daily Aztec -9/11 where are we now http://media. www. thedailyaztec. com/media/storage/ paper741/news/2008/09/11/911WhereAreWeNow/The-Patriot. Act-3425472. shtml Langer, G. (2005). Poll: support seen for Patriot Act. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://abcnews. go. com/US/PollVault/story? id=833703 Mil Net. (2001). U. S. Patriot Act of 2001. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://www. milnet. com/pat-act-HR3162. htm MSN Encarta. (2008). Patriot Act. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://encarta. msn. com/encyclopedia_701712693_3/Patriot_Act.html New York Civil Liberties Union. (2005). Oppose expansion of USA Patriot Act. Retrieved S eptember 25, 2008, from http://ga1. org/nyclu/alert-description. html? alert_id=1303074 Rosenweig, P. (2004). United States. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://italianlibertarians. tripod. com/id12. html Rosenweig, P. , Kochems, A. & James Jay Carafano, J. J. ( 2004). The Parito Act reader: understanding the law's role in the global war on terrorism. Retriieved September 25, 2008, from http://www. heritage. org/Research/HomelandDefense/upload/69895_1. pdf The Patriot Act The United States 9/11 attack has marked a significant event in the history. The attack against USA was a proof that even strong and imperialist countries are never safe at any time. It has severely damaged the US reputation and challenged them further – economically, politically and socially. This system reluctance has made citizens and government more vigilant of their safety, and consequently it led US into formally launching laws and policies that aimed to strengthen their defenses against terrorist activities.Immediately following the 9/11 attack, the US government was fast into amending the US Patriotic Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism). This act contains 157 sections, which includes legal responses to assist terrorist victims, protect civilians from fake solicitations, and provide benefits for public safety (Perez, 2003).The act gave more ability to the law enforcement bodies to investigat e on cases suspected to involve local and foreign terrorist activities, more power to target monetary transactions that possibly induced terrorist connections and filter against all electronic communication devices that may be infiltrated by terrorist activities (Gable). According to the US government and its supporters, the US Patriot Act shall be able to reveres terrorism efforts and effects in several ways:(1) The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking; (2) The Patriot Act facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better â€Å"connect the dots. â€Å"; (3) The Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats and; (4) The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes (The USA Patriotic Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pp.1-4). However, several years have passed since the attack and since th e start of the implementation of the act, numerous claims of its inefficacy have emerged; moreover, instead of its benefits being publicized, its negative implications and results are rather more rampant. Shortly two years since the 9/11 occurrence, and even right at the moment that we speak, numerous cases of violations of human liberties have bee n reported to have thwarted the civilian.More so, it has nourished the feeling of discontent and dissent over concerned citizens as the act continued its â€Å"rampage against terrorism. † What the act has merely done is to limit the privacy of the civilians. The act has legalized all sorts of interferences towards the private messages and way of communication that every individual goes through against their will, and even behind private citizens’ knowledge and consent (Kranich, 2003).The act, though it has indeed signaled the intensified battle against terrorism, it has also catered the arena that strengthened the backbone for government intervention against private citizens. Ironically though, the same provisions that are supposedly and potentially to be of important use in order to eliminate terrorist activities, are the same provisions that have suppressed the liberty of individuals and have further violated human rights in a number of ways.Amidst the oppositions from concerned groups against the passage and the continuity of the amendment, still the US government pursued its interest to counter terrorism even against the will and support of a large part of the American citizens, as well as other citizens around the world. Now, looking back at the instances starting from the attack, towards the end wherein the US legalized such provisions for the US Patriot Act – it is only rational to take a look on what it has caused and asses if the result was worth taking the risk once more if the provisions of the act are to be renewed.Personally, if I were to take a vote on whether the act should be re newed, I would rather have it reassessed first and point out the blunders that have caused too much opposition against it. At one point, the act was passed under limited time and too much pressure from the international community as it was enacted shortly after the 9/11 attack, it is enough to say that it was passed without proper deliberations (Van Bergen, 2002) Moreover, changes are really ought to be done in order to create a just and equal standpoint in battling against terrorism.One thing that should be changed is the utter disrespect against individual liberty that it encourages. Anything that directly and deliberately limits and suppresses the freedom and privacy of an individual must be opposed just because of mere suspicions. If anything must be done that shall violate the rights of the individuals, proper investigation must take recourse and until sufficient information are gathered, no one holds the right to interfere against anyone’s privacy.Though the US Patriot Act was implemented in its goal to counter terrorist attacks and to further protect the welfare of the American citizens, as well as other citizens in world but, it should not be forgotten that the basic right to freedom of the individuals should not be put at stake. Countrywide safety is really important, however, to totally violate the human rights is also as dangerous as what terrorism can bring, thus justifying the changes, if not the repeal of the US Patriot Act. References Department of Justice. The USA Patriotic Act: Preserving Life and Liberty.Retrieved from Life and Liberty database Gable, Garrett. Effects of the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from Kranich, Nancy. (2003) The Impact of USA Patriot Act: An Update. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from Perez, Paul. 2003. USA Patriot Act helps efforts to combat terrorism. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from St. Petersburg Times Van Bergen, Jennifer. 2002. Repeal the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from www. tru thout. org

6 Interesting Facts About the Hispanic Population

Facts and figures about the Hispanic American population reveal it is not only the largest ethnic minority group in the United States but also one of the most complex. Individuals of any race (black, white, Native American) identify as Latino. Hispanics in the U.S. trace their roots to a variety of continents, speak a variety of languages and practice a variety of customs. As the Latino population grows, the American public’s knowledge about Hispanics grows as well. In this effort, the U.S. Census Bureau compiled statistics about Latinos in honor of National Hispanic Heritage Month that shed light on where Latinos are concentrated in the United States, how much the Latino population has grown and the strides Latinos have made in sectors such as business. Latinos face challenges as well; they remain underrepresented in higher education and suffer from high rates of poverty. As Latinos gain more resources and opportunities, expect them to excel. Population Boom With 52 million Americans identifying as Hispanic, Latinos make up 16.7% of the U.S. population. From 2010 to 2011 alone, the number of Hispanics in the country jumped by 1.3 million, a 2.5% increase. By 2050, the Hispanic population is expected to reach 132.8 million, or 30% of the projected U.S. population at that time. The Hispanic population in the U.S. in 2010 was the largest in the world outside of Mexico, which has a population of 112 million. Mexican Americans are the largest Latino group in the U.S., making up 63% of Hispanics in the nation. Next in line are Puerto Ricans, who make up 9.2% of the Hispanic population, and Cubans, who make up 3.5% of Hispanics. Hispanic Concentration in the U.S. Where are Hispanics concentrated in the country? More than 50% of Latinos call three states (California, Florida, and Texas) home. But New Mexico stands out as the state with the largest proportion  of Hispanics,  making  up 46.7% of the state. Eight states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas) have Hispanic populations of at least 1 million. Los Angeles County boasts the highest number of Latinos, with 4.7 million Hispanics. Eighty-two of the country’s 3,143 counties were majority-Hispanic. Flourishing in Business From 2002 to 2007, the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in 2007 jumped by 43.6% to 2.3 million. During that time frame, they grossed $350.7 billion, which represents a 58% jump between 2002 and 2007. The state of New Mexico leads the nation in Hispanic-owned businesses. There, 23.7% of businesses are Hispanic-owned. Next in line is Florida, where 22.4% of businesses are Hispanic-owned, and Texas, where 20.7% are. Challenges in Education Latinos have advances to make in education. In 2010, just 62.2% of Hispanics aged 25 and up had a high school diploma. In contrast, from 2006 to 2010, 85% of Americans aged 25 and up had graduated from high school. In 2010, only 13% of Hispanics had obtained at least a bachelor’s degree. More than double that proportion of Americans generally (27.9%) had obtained a bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree. In 2010, only 6.2% of college students were Latino. That same year just more than a million Hispanics held advanced degrees. Overcoming Poverty Hispanics were the ethnic group said to be hardest hit by the economic recession that kicked off in 2007. From 2009 to 2010, the poverty rate for Latinos actually increased to 26.6% from 25.3%. The national poverty rate in 2010 was 15.3%. Moreover, the median household income for Latinos in 2010 was just $37,759. In contrast, the median household income for the nation between 2006 and 2010 was $51,914. The good news for Latinos is that the amount of Hispanics without health insurance appears to be declining. In 2009, 31.6% of Hispanics lacked health insurance. In 2010, that figure dropped to 30.7%. Spanish Speakers Spanish speakers make up 12.8% (37 million) of the U.S. population. In 1990, 17.3 million Spanish speakers lived in the U.S. But make no mistake. Speaking Spanish doesn’t mean one isn’t fluent in English. More than half of the country’s Spanish speakers say they speak English â€Å"very well.† Most Hispanics in the U.S. (75.1%) spoke Spanish at home in 2010.