John Stuart Mill Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

John Stuart Mill - Essay Example Furthermore, the paper takes note on case studies, such as the Hudnut Pornography Case and its interpretation by Mills. Concerning Mill’s On Liberty, we have two distinct interpretations of matters related to liberty and freedom. There is harm’s principle and how the citizens perceive it in the view of the government. According to Stuart, the harm’s principle state that a person may be prevented from transferring harm to others to avoid any disagreements. Therefore, we will begin by evaluating the issue of freedom and liberty from the Mill’s perspective. In any civilized society, Mill suggests in On Liberty that there must be a government body that ensures its people is controlled in a systematic way. This is through proper exercising of freedom and upholding of the rule of law (Mill 23). As argued by Mill in his book, the government must act in an autonomous manner, to avoid being influenced by majority opinions to ensure that the system of governance run s. Similarly, when the government is in control, it is able to ensure that it represents every voice of the citizenry. This means that the minority groups that are not influenced by selfish ambitions and personal convictions who do not speak are equally represented, in the matrix of national cohesion. Additionally, the control of the government symbolize a state of control where cases of unrests, protests and demonstrations that are characterized by the discontented lot of the majority. However, as posited by Mill in Utilitarianism, it is upon every ordinary citizen to derive his happiness from the circumstances presented by his government (Mill 12). This means the citizen should obey the law, pay taxes, remain patriotic and respect other fellow citizens. Alternatively, this does not mean the government has the force upon the citizenry in any conventional way of conducting their duties. Furthermore, the government is mandated to allow citizens to enjoy their fundamental rights and f reedoms as a way of upholding the rule of law. On that account, according to Mill, even if citizens follow the stipulated the laws, the government should use democratic methods that uphold citizen liberty. In other words, citizens should be allowed to make their choices in whatever they do as long they do not fringe on the freedoms of others. Similarly, Mill supports this fact in Utilitarianism where he encourages the freedoms of choosing one’s form of happiness as long as it is of no damage to other parties or individuals (Winston and Edelbach 154). Alternatively, the government should allow citizens to experiment with any form of lifestyle in attaining their goals and objectives of life for the betterment of the general society. However, again Mill warns in On Liberty that the government and even society have a crucial role to use coercive force in case a citizen violates the limits of his freedom. This brings us to issue of public opinion and the obligation of the governme nt to censor distracters, such as the opposition, which sometimes wastes time debating trivial matters at the expense of the economic development. Mill argues in On Liberty that the government has the supreme authority to ignore such voices or even apply a form of punishment to act as a deterrent for others who may have such sinister intentions (Bowie and Simon 60). Similarly, the government, while

Job Evaluation, Market Pricing & Pay Structures Term Paper

Job Evaluation, Market Pricing & Pay Structures - Term Paper Example Job evaluation approach Job evaluation approach to set pay range ranks the job on the basis of responsibilities and duties expected by the position to perform. This evaluation technique helps the organization to select a pay grade that is a pay range with minimum and maximum rate. This approach evaluates a job on the basis of four factors which are skills possessed by the individual, efforts made by the individual, responsibilities performed by the individual and working conditions of the individual (Armstrong, 2007). (Jenss & Associates) On the basis of above factors organizations design pay structures, although there are many variations in this process but all organizations using this techniques follow the same approach which is to define each job in the group on the basis of above discussed generic factors. The first step in this approach is to decide which job to be covered in the evaluation and what factors are to be used to evaluate, second step is to gather information about e ach job to be evaluated, third step is to rate each job evaluation factors of the job, and the step four in the process is to select the benchmark jobs among jobs selected for evaluation which connects internal pay structure with external labor market (Armstrong, 2007). ... This method is quite expensive, complex and hard to understandable for employees. The major drawback of this approach is that it rewards tenure and efforts rather than outcomes and performances which are quite unjustifiable (Armstrong and Brown, 2001). Market pricing approach Market pricing approach sets pay scale according to the prevailing market rate of the pay for similar job, this approach is the most dominant and common way organizations use to determine pay scales. Evolution of this method to sets pay scale has shifted the organization’s focus from internal methods to use market data to sets pay scale. This approach place jobs in grades based on the level of competitive pay for different jobs, in this way it also decreases the level of grades and makes the job and pay structure simple (Armstrong, 2007). This method sets pay scale for selected job position and its description on the prevailing market rate. In this way organizations stay competitive and are able to retain their employees for long. This approach is comparatively less expensive and easily understandable for employees, this approach also reduces disputes between employees regarding pay scale. It evaluates jobs on results and accountability rather than efforts and tenure (Heneman and LeBlanc, 2002). There is a major drawback with this approach; if the market data is not available for the job position for which pay scale needed to be set than it becomes very hard and complicated for the organizations to set pay scale; Secondly this approach can result in statistical errors such as to place the job in wrong grade; thirdly this approach is highly dependent upon market survey, any lacking or error in the survey can result in disaster and wrong placement of jobs.

How Effective is Congress as a Legislature?

How Effective is Congress as a Legislature? Among the world’s most successful democracies is the United States, whose system of checks and balances has seen more successes than failures. A system constantly in flux, the American form of government is divided into legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Of these branches, perhaps the one whose efficacy is most challenged is the Congress, the only branch directly representing the interests of the people (the judiciary is appointed by the executive, which in turn is selected by an electoral college comprised of the legislative). Recent developments in the world stage, in addition to the changing face of American politics and domestic interests have tested the bounds of Congress as well as its ability to function as a check against the executive. Most glaring of its purported shortcomings, however, is its legislative powers. Today’s Congress is most impeded by partisan agendas, traditional bureaucracies, and conflicts of personal interest in its daily machinat ions. No matter its inefficacies, however, â€Å"it cannot be argued that there is a permanent or necessary connection between representative assemblies and liberty†[1]. In an unusual political paradox, it is Congress’ existence despite its countless failures as a legislature that makes it a successful legislative body, and in doing so, makes the United States a successful democracy. As a bicameral entity, Congress is effective in balancing partisan interests with voter interest. Following serious reform after the 1994 GOP blitzkrieg spearheaded by Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia), the two legislative bodies continued down their own respective paths. As they â€Å"adjusted to [GOP] reforms, the two chambers took divergent paths and by the late 1980s†; power in the House had â€Å"centralized under a stronger majority party leadership, whereas the Senate continued as a highly individualistic chamber†[2]. Pursuing an amalgamation of partisan as well as regional constituent interests, the Congress is currently highly effective as a representative legislative body. Recent evidence of partisan splits manifested themselves in the Dubai Ports World fallout and the clash over President Bush’s Guest Worker Program, in which Republican interests revealed the separation earlier delineated. Even in seemingly single-party administrations such as the current Bush administration find themselves in check, its constituents conflicted over interests of the people and goals of the party. The White House has encountered responses varying from wholesale rejection such as Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-California) of the Guest Worker Program to Peter King’s (R-New York) attempted compromise of the failed Dubai Ports Deal initiative. In the sense of sustaining the esteemed tradition of checks and balances, the Congress has proven itself as successful in comparison to the state of Congressional affairs â€Å"in the 1950s, [when the largely ineffective House and Senate were commonly characterized as rigid feudal systems ruled by a small number of powerful committee barons†; today, â€Å"they [are] more often depicted as anarchies where members participated on their own terms and without restraint† owed to executive partisan allegiance[3]. It can be effectively argued, however, that the phenomenon of single party conflict is primarily reactionary in nature, a statement that reflects detractors’ sentiments that Congressional legislation is effective only when there is time to accommodate the bureaucratic machinations that are both Congressional hallmarks and weaknesses. In defense of the American Congress, however, the same ineffectual tendencies can be said of any representative law-making body. All â€Å"representative assemblies [such as Congress]† are ineffectual and â€Å"inherently unfit to be primary political institutions in a technological mass-age† that commands urgency; Congress is regarded by some to be legislatively â€Å"anomalous† not only in their â€Å"inescapable defects as political institutions† but also in â€Å"their characteristic virtues†[4]. Domestic polity may not require urgency or the consolidation of a rushed majority, but in an increasingly globalized environment, the individual temerity and trivial maneuvers of constituent consolidation render Congress alarmingly impotent as a body politic. In his On the Hill: a History of the American Congress, Alvin Josephy asserts that the same Congressional bureaucracy that maintains its plebiscitary nature hampers legislation and â€Å"periodically angers taxpayers, further eroding the prestige of the legislature and served to stultify Congress by deadening its vitality and aggressiveness amid the enervating trappings of a privileged bureaucracy†[5]. Some scholars purport that â€Å"to date, the American Congress, though fallen, is not dead†[6]. However, in drastic times that call for speedy resolution, the American government has reconciled itself to the removal of its bureaucracy in the nullification of Congressional workings. The War Powers Resolution, though designed to limit the President’s power to wage war without Congressional approval, is still bounded by the simple fact that Congress is removed from the equation. There would be no purpose for such an act if Congress established itself as decisive or effective in its legislation. Congressional efficacy has eroded over the last four administrations, stumbling over its own feet in the establishment of a requisite two-thirds majority in order to reign in the executive branch. Despite recent demonstrations of power, the â€Å"congressional curb on the executive has been potential, for the most part, in recent years,† its capabilities seldom â€Å"direct ly [or] wisely applied†[7]. Conditional clauses such as those of the War Powers Resolution are designed to render the Congress as powerless as possible; even the 60-day statute of limitation binding the duration of the War Powers Resolution are contingent upon a time the President deems fit. Granted, more moderate alternatives exist, and past attempts were made to remedy the mounting problem of bureaucratic functional delays. Independent committees were created to handle different fields in legislation. For example, current congressional committees include the committees on foreign relations, security, and military appropriations exist. The number of committees is limited so as to facilitate decisive action. Unfortunately, attempts such as the limiting of committees to abate the morays of bureaucratic management â€Å"came to nothing when both houses began to create numerous subcommittees and special committees†; the goal of â€Å"helping members of Congress in their w ork was corrupted by an unprecedented expansion of questionable emoluments and perquisites for Senators and Representatives [sic]†[8]. Further divisive in their truncation, Congress proved vastly ineffective as a legislative body, most notably due to a loss of functional perspective. The mentioned committees, subcommittees and special committees serve as little more than mediocre shows of power. For example, a minority Democrat Congress may propose several subcommittees so as to facilitate a platform for display of legislative efficacy. If, for example, several smaller committees exist, their individual victories would provide more substantial political capital and momentum so as to provide for a future Democrat Congress. The current immigration reform failures of the Bush administration exemplify the type of fertile political ground established by smaller victories. Larger issues such as the war in Iraq and the treatment of so-called â€Å"enemy combatants† in the curr ent War on Terror that would erstwhile cost Congressional credibility are overshadowed by the successes of smaller committees, whose numerous victories debase presidential and GOP reliability in the eyes of the taxpayer (and more importantly, the swing constituents that won a Republican Congress in 1994). Political aspirations are thinly veiled by legislative action in Congress, which has yet to strongly assert itself in pressing issues of the current administration. There is no doubting the necessity of Congress, no matter its shortcomings. As â€Å"part of the advance of democratism in belief and practice, a plebiscitary or numerical majority comes to seem the only proper expression of the sovereign general will†[9]. No matter the inefficacy of Congress as a legislature, its existence as a legislative body is the prerogative of the people who formed it. Politically speaking, Congress is little more than a forum used to trumpet partisan goals and achievements. The struggle between the two-party American political systems is, however, manifested in legislative wins and losses, no matter how nominal. It is in this mode that Congress is effective—American Congress is effective as a farcical stage in which political dominance is procured through a series of legislative initiatives. Congress’ devolution as a legislature â€Å"seems to be correlated with a more general historical transformation toward political and social forms w ithin which the representative assembly—the major political organism of post-Renaissance western civilization—does not have a primary political function†[10]. Essentially, if legislation is meant to hasten the workings of a democracy, Congress is impotent as a legislative body. However, if the success of Congressional legislation is measured in its ability to marginalize partisan interests, then Congress is not only effective but the most necessary tool in a representative body. Today, Congress’ relegation to a reactionary bureaucracy renders it a â€Å"rubber stamp, a name and a ritual, or an echo of powers lodged elsewhere†[11]. The bicameral legislature, then, is merely a formality, and if treated as such, is a success and for the most part an effective system. Its â€Å"bureaucratic democratism† is in such a mode â€Å"an indispensable instrument of its managerial rule†; the goal, therefore, is not to pass legislation, but to expos e the choices and leanings of those involved in decision-making so as to better acquaint respective constituents with their selections in future elections[12]. The more obtuse failures of the United States Congress have been those that occur in the maintenance of equal distribution of governance among the branches of government. The legislature has oft been expressed as a puppet of the executive, â€Å"unwilling to abolish any of the important newer agencies, bureaus or programs of the executive branch; but by reasserting the power of the purse it still might do so, and this the bureaucracy must keep, however scornfully and reluctantly, in mind†[13]. In its reactionary state, Congress is rather successful as a legislature, albeit lacking in initiative and any means of preventative measures. Congress’ legislative powers endow it with the constantly renewed ability to â€Å"inform citizens about the conduct of the bureaucracy, no matter how closely the executive† guards said information[14]. Some indeed argue that Congress would be more effective as â€Å"a political appendage of the executive which, after a certain amount of verbal ritual, and without genuine debate, invariably and predictably approved the executive’s proposals by a unanimous or close to unanimous vote†[15]. However effective this would render the act of legislation, it would cease to be democratic and hence become decree. The act of legislation is, in and of itself, defined by bureaucratic inefficacy. What most refer to as bureaucracy, others refer to as consensus. Congress’ failures and glaring inefficiencies are its only measure of success; the more unanimous (or what is perceived to be unanimity) the action, the less evidence exists of any real debate or public consultation. The Truman administration, for example, was an instance in which Congress’ legislative efficiency revealed little more than a diminished democracy led by pandering to executive governance. The lack of real legislation during the Cold War was not in the failure to change, but the failure to pass any sort of legislation in Congress that would curb a) hawkish defense spending, and b) presidential liberties in unilateral action. It is indisputable that Congressional powers have diminished, but the diminution of Congressional efficacy reflects its success as a legislature. Bureaucratic bodies such as Congress exist to hamper decision-making, as slowing the process prevents autocracy. If measuring the ability of Congressional legislation is an evaluation of its polity and ability to effectively maneuver without fear of retribution or disagreement, then Congress is a complete and utter failure. However, if the success of Congressional legislature is measured by the amount of bureaucratic stalling and arguments between parties vying for dominance that can never truly exist, then the stasis created would render erstwhile legislative failings as hallmarks of democratic success. BIBLIOGRAPHY Burnham, James. (1965) Congress and the American Tradition. Chicago: Henry RegneryCompany. Josephy, Alvin M. (1975) On the Hill: A History of the American Congress. New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc. Zelizer, Julian E. (2004) The American Congress: The Building of a Democracy. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin Trade and Reference. Footnotes [1] Burnham 338 [2] Zelizer 625 [3] Zelizer 625 [4] Burnham 345 [5] Josephy 369 [6] Burnham 337 [7] Burnham 339 [8] Josephy 369 [9] Burnham 334 [10] Ibid [11] Burnham 337 [12] Burnham 338 [13] Burnham 339 [14] Burnham 400 [15] Burnham 341

Doomed Relationships in the Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska Essay

Doomed Relationships in the Bread Givers The Bread Givers, written by Anzia Yezierska, revolves around a starving lower east side family whose daughter rebels against her fathers’ strict conception of the role of a Jewish woman. The major theme of this novel is doomed relationships. There are several of these that are thoroughly analyzed in the novel. These include the relationship between Rabbi Smolinksy and the females in his family as well as those in his society, between him and his son-in-laws, between the Smolinsky daughters and their husbands, between the Smolinsky daughters and their heritage, between Rabbi Smolinksy and his heritage, and lastly, between the old and the new. The following will concentrate on three of latter relationships that are doomed to fail. The main doomed relationship in the novel the Bread Givers, is the relationship between Rabbi Smolinsky and the females in the Smolinsky family. No relationship can survive when one thinks lowly of the other. This is what occurred in the novel and is seen when Rabbi Smolinsky, who still emotionally lives... Doomed Relationships in the Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska Essay Doomed Relationships in the Bread Givers The Bread Givers, written by Anzia Yezierska, revolves around a starving lower east side family whose daughter rebels against her fathers’ strict conception of the role of a Jewish woman. The major theme of this novel is doomed relationships. There are several of these that are thoroughly analyzed in the novel. These include the relationship between Rabbi Smolinksy and the females in his family as well as those in his society, between him and his son-in-laws, between the Smolinsky daughters and their husbands, between the Smolinsky daughters and their heritage, between Rabbi Smolinksy and his heritage, and lastly, between the old and the new. The following will concentrate on three of latter relationships that are doomed to fail. The main doomed relationship in the novel the Bread Givers, is the relationship between Rabbi Smolinsky and the females in the Smolinsky family. No relationship can survive when one thinks lowly of the other. This is what occurred in the novel and is seen when Rabbi Smolinsky, who still emotionally lives...

The Host Chapter 41: Vanished

Ian sat with me for three days in the darkness. He left for only a few short minutes at a time, to get us food and water. At first, Ian ate, though I did not. Then, as he realized that it wasn't a loss of appetite that left my tray full, he stopped eating, too. I used his brief absences to deal with the physical needs that I could not ignore, thankful for the proximity of the odorous stream. As my fast lengthened, those needs vanished. I couldn't keep from sleeping, but I did not make myself comfortable. The first day, I woke to find my head and shoulders cradled on his lap. I recoiled from him, shuddering so violently that he did not repeat the gesture. After that, I slumped against the stones where I was, and when I woke, I would curl back up into my silent ball at once. â€Å"Please,† Ian whispered on the third day-at least I thought it was the third day; there was no way to be sure of the passing time in this dark, silent place. It was the first time he'd spoken. I knew a tray of food was in front of me. He pushed it closer, till it touched my leg. I cringed away. â€Å"Please, Wanda. Please eat something.† He put his hand on my arm but moved away quickly when I flinched out from under it. â€Å"Please don't hate me. I'm so sorry. If I'd known†¦ I would have stopped them. I won't let it happen again.† He would never stop them. He was just one among many. And, as Jared had said, he'd had no objections before. I was the enemy. Even in the most compassionate, humankind's limited scope of mercy was reserved for their own. I knew Doc could never intentionally inflict pain on another person. I doubted he would even be capable of watching such a thing, tender as his feelings were. But a worm, a centipede? Why would he care about the agony of a strange alien creature? Why would it bother him to murder a baby-slowly, slicing it apart piece by piece-if it had no human mouth to scream with? â€Å"I should have told you,† Ian whispered. Would it have mattered if I'd simply been told rather than having seen the tortured remains for myself? Would the pain be less strong? â€Å"Please eat.† The silence returned. We sat in it for a while, maybe another hour. Ian got up and walked quietly away. I could make no sense of my emotions. In that moment, I hated the body I was bound to. How did it make sense that his going depressed me? Why should it pain me to have the solitude I craved? I wanted the monster back, and that was plainly wrong. I wasn't alone for long. I didn't know if Ian had gone to get him or if he'd been waiting for Ian to leave, but I recognized Jeb's contemplative whistle as it approached in the darkness. The whistling stopped a few feet from me, and there was a loud click. A beam of yellow light burned my eyes. I blinked against it. Jeb set the flashlight down, bulb up. It threw a circle of light on the low ceiling and made a wider, more diffuse sphere of light around us. Jeb settled himself against the wall beside me. â€Å"Gonna starve yourself, then? Is that the plan?† I glared at the stone floor. If I was being honest with myself, I knew that my mourning was over. I had grieved. I hadn't known the child or the other soul in the cave of horrors. I could not grieve for strangers forever. No, now I was angry. â€Å"You wanna die, there are easier and faster ways.† As if I wasn't aware of that. â€Å"So give me to Doc, then,† I croaked. Jeb wasn't surprised to hear me speak. He nodded to himself, as if this was exactly what he'd known would come out of my mouth. â€Å"Did you expect us to just give up, Wanderer?† Jeb's voice was stern and more serious than I had ever heard it before. â€Å"We have a stronger survival instinct than that. Of course we want to find a way to get our minds back. It could be any one of us someday. So many people we love are already lost. â€Å"It isn't easy. It nearly kills Doc each time he fails-you've seen that. But this is our reality, Wanda. This is our world. We've lost a war. We are about to be extinct. We're trying to find ways to save ourselves.† For the first time, Jeb spoke to me as if I were a soul and not a human. I had a sense that the distinction had always been clear to him, though. He was just a courteous monster. I couldn't deny the truth of what he was saying, or the sense of it. The shock had worn off, and I was myself again. It was in my nature to be fair. Some few of these humans could see my side of things; Ian, at least. Then I, too, could consider their perspective. They were monsters, but maybe monsters who were justified in what they were doing. Of course they would think violence was the answer. They wouldn't be able to imagine any other solution. Could I blame them that their genetic programming restricted their problem-solving abilities in this way? I cleared my throat, but my voice was still hoarse with disuse. â€Å"Hacking up babies won't save anyone, Jeb. Now they're all dead.† He was quiet for a moment. â€Å"We can't tell your young from your old.† â€Å"No, I know that.† â€Å"Your kind don't spare our babies.† â€Å"We don't torture them, though. We never intentionally cause anyone pain.† â€Å"You do worse than that. You erase them.† â€Å"You do both.† â€Å"We do, yes-because we have to try. We have to keep fighting. It's the only way we know. It's keep trying or turn our faces to the wall and die.† He raised one eyebrow at me. That must have been what it looked like I was doing. I sighed and took the water bottle Ian had left close to my foot. I drained it in one long pull, and then cleared my throat again. â€Å"It will never work, Jeb. You can keep cutting us out in pieces, but you'll just murder more and more sentient creatures of both species. We do not willingly kill, but our bodies are not weak, either. Our attachments may look like soft silver hair, but they're stronger than your organs. That's what's happening, isn't it? Doc slices up my family, and their limbs shred through the brains of yours.† â€Å"Like cottage cheese,† he agreed. I gagged and then shuddered at the image. â€Å"It makes me sick, too,† he admitted. â€Å"Doc gets real bent out of shape. Every time he thinks he's got it cracked, it goes south again. He's tried everything he can think of, but he can't save them from getting turned into oatmeal. Your souls don't respond to injected sedation†¦ or poison.† My voice came out rough with new horror. â€Å"Of course not. Our chemical makeup is completely different.† â€Å"Once, one of yours seemed to guess what was going to happen. Before Doc could knock the human out, the silver thingy tore up his brain from the inside. Course, we didn't know that until Doc opened him up. The guy just collapsed.† I was surprised, strangely impressed. That soul must have been very brave. I had not had the courage to take that step, even in the beginning when I was sure they were going to try to torture this very information from me. I didn't imagine they would try to slash the answer out for themselves; that course was so obviously doomed to failure, it had never occurred to me. â€Å"Jeb, we are relatively tiny creatures, utterly dependent on unwilling hosts. We wouldn't have lasted very long if we didn't have some defenses.† â€Å"I'm not denying that your kind have a right to those defenses. I'm just telling you that we're gonna keep fighting back, however we can. We don't mean to cause anyone pain. We're makin' this up as we go. But we will keep fighting.† We looked at each other. â€Å"Then maybe you should have Doc slice me up. What else am I good for?† â€Å"Now, now. Don't be silly, Wanda. We humans aren't so logical as all that. We have a greater range of good and bad in us than you do. Well, maybe mostly the bad.† I nodded at that, but he kept going, ignoring me. â€Å"We value the individual. We probably put too much emphasis on the individual, if it comes right down to it. How many people, in the abstract, would†¦ let's say Paige†¦ how many people would she sacrifice to keep Andy alive? The answer wouldn't make any sense if you were looking at the whole of humanity as equals. â€Å"The way you are valued here†¦ Well, that don't make much sense when you look at it from humanity's perspective, either. But there's some who would value you above a human stranger. Have to admit, I put myself in that group. I count you as a friend, Wanda. Course, that's not gonna work well if you hate me.† â€Å"I don't hate you, Jeb. But†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"Yeah?† â€Å"I just don't see how I can live here anymore. Not if you're going to be slaughtering my family in the other room. And I can't leave, obviously. So you see what I mean? What else is there for me but Doc's pointless cutting?† I shuddered. He nodded seriously. â€Å"Now, that's a real valid point. It's not fair to ask you to live with that.† My stomach dropped. â€Å"If I get a choice, I'd rather you shot me, actually,† I whispered. Jeb laughed. â€Å"Slow down there, honey. Nobody's shooting my friends, or hackin' ‘ em up. I know you're not lying, Wanda. If you say doing it our way isn't going to work, then we're going to have to rethink things. I'll tell the boys they're not to bring any more souls back for now. Besides, I think Doc's nerves are toast. He can't take much more of this.† â€Å"You could be lying to me,† I reminded him. â€Å"I probably couldn't tell.† â€Å"You'll have to trust me, then. Because I'm not going to shoot you. And I'm not going to let you starve yourself, either. Eat something, kid. That's an order.† I took a deep breath, trying to think. I wasn't sure if we'd come to an accommodation or not. Nothing made sense in this body. I liked the people here too much. They were friends. Monstrous friends that I couldn't see in the proper light while sunk in emotion. Jeb picked up a thick square of cornbread soaked through with stolen honey and shoved it into my hand. It made a mess there, crumbling into gluey morsels that stuck to my fingers. I sighed again and started cleaning them off with my tongue. â€Å"That's a girl! We'll get over this rough spot. Things are gonna work out here, you'll see. Try to think positive.† â€Å"Think positive,† I mumbled around a mouthful of food, shaking my head with disbelief. Only Jeb†¦ Ian came back then. When he walked into our circle of light and saw the food in my hand, the look that spread across his face filled me with guilt. It was a look of joyous relief. No, I had never intentionally caused anyone physical pain, but I had hurt Ian deeply enough just by hurting myself. Human lives were so impossibly tangled. What a mess. â€Å"Here you are, Jeb,† he said in a subdued voice as he sat down across from us, just slightly closer to Jeb. â€Å"Jared guessed you might be here.† I dragged myself half a foot toward him, my arms aching from being motionless so long, and put my hand on his. â€Å"Sorry,† I whispered. He turned his hand up to hold mine. â€Å"Don't apologize to me.† â€Å"I should have known. Jeb's right. Of course you fight back. How can I blame you for that?† â€Å"It's different with you here. It should have stopped.† But my being here had only made it that much more important to solve the problem. How to rip me out and keep Melanie here. How to erase me to bring her back. â€Å"All's fair in war,† I murmured, trying to smile. He grinned weakly back. â€Å"And love. You forgot that part.† â€Å"Okay, break it up,† Jeb mumbled. â€Å"I'm not done here.† I looked at him curiously. What more was there? â€Å"Now.† He took a deep breath. â€Å"Try not to freak out again, okay?† he asked, looking at me. I froze, gripping Ian's hand tighter. Ian threw an anxious glance at Jeb. â€Å"You're going to tell her?† Ian asked. â€Å"What now?† I gasped. â€Å"What is it now?† Jeb had his poker face on. â€Å"It's Jamie.† Those two words turned the world upside down again. For three long days, I'd been Wanderer, a soul among humans. I was suddenly Wanda again, a very confused soul with human emotions that were too powerful to control. I jumped to my feet-yanking Ian up with me, my hand locked on his like a vise-and then swayed, my head spinning. â€Å"Sheesh. I said don't freak out, Wanda. Jamie's okay. He's just really anxious about you. He heard what happened, and he's been asking for you-worried out of his mind, that kid is-and I don't think it's good for him. I came down here to ask you to go see him. But you can't go like this. You look horrible. It will just upset him for no good reason. Sit down and eat some more food.† â€Å"His leg?† I demanded. â€Å"There's a little infection,† Ian murmured. â€Å"Doc wants him to stay down or he'd have come to get you a long time ago. If Jared wasn't practically pinning him to the bed, he would have come anyway.† Jeb nodded. â€Å"Jared almost came here and carried you out by force, but I told him to let me speak to you first. It wouldn't do the kid any good to see you catatonic.† My blood felt as though it had changed into ice water. Surely just my imagination. â€Å"What's being done?† Jeb shrugged. â€Å"Nothin' to do. Kid's strong; he'll fight it off.† â€Å"Nothing to do? What do you mean?† â€Å"It's a bacterial infection,† Ian said. â€Å"We don't have antibiotics anymore.† â€Å"Because they don't work-the bacteria are smarter than your medicines. There has to be something better, something else.† â€Å"Well, we don't have anything else,† Jeb said. â€Å"He's a healthy kid. It just has to run its course.† â€Å"Run†¦ its†¦ course.† I murmured the words in a daze. â€Å"Eat something,† Ian urged. â€Å"You'll worry him if he sees you like this.† I rubbed my eyes, trying to think straight. Jamie was sick. There was nothing to treat him with here. No options but waiting to see if his body could heal itself. And if it couldn't†¦ â€Å"No,† I gasped. I felt as if I were standing on the edge of Walter's grave again, listening to the sound of sand falling into the darkness. â€Å"No,† I moaned, fighting against the memory. I turned mechanically and started walking with stiff strides toward the exit. â€Å"Wait,† Ian said, but he didn't pull against the hand he still held. He kept pace with me. Jeb caught up to me on the other side and shoved more food into my free hand. â€Å"Eat for the kid's sake,† he said. I bit into it without tasting, chewed without thinking, swallowed without feeling the food go down. â€Å"Knew she was gonna overreact,† Jeb grumbled. â€Å"So why did you tell her?† Ian asked, frustrated. Jeb didn't answer. I wondered why he didn't. Was this worse even than I imagined? â€Å"Is he in the hospital?† I asked in an emotionless, inflectionless voice. â€Å"No, no,† Ian assured me quickly. â€Å"He's in your room.† I didn't even feel relief. Too numb for that. I would have gone into that room again for Jamie, even if it was still reeking of blood. I didn't see the familiar caves I walked through. I barely noticed that it was day. I couldn't meet the eyes of any of the humans who stopped to stare at me. I could only put one foot in front of the other until I finally reached the hallway. There were a few people clustered in front of the seventh cave. The silk screen was pushed far aside, and they craned their necks to see into Jared's room. They were all familiar, people I'd considered friends. Jamie's friends, too. Why were they here? Was his condition so unstable that they needed to check on him often? â€Å"Wanda,† someone said. Heidi. â€Å"Wanda's here.† â€Å"Let her through,† Wes said. He slapped Jeb on the back. â€Å"Good job.† I walked through the little group without looking at them. They parted for me; I might have walked right into them if they hadn't. I couldn't concentrate on anything but moving myself forward. It was bright in the high-ceilinged room. The room itself was not crowded. Doc or Jared had kept everyone out. I was vaguely aware of Jared, leaning against the far wall with his hands clasped behind him-a posture he assumed only when he was really worried. Doc knelt beside the big bed where Jamie lay, just where I had left him. Why had I left him? Jamie's face was red and sweaty. The right leg of his jeans had been cut away, and the bandage was peeled back from his wound. It wasn't as big as I'd expected. Not as horrible as I would have imagined. Just a two-inch gash with smooth edges. But the edges were a frightening shade of red, and the skin around the cut was swollen and shiny. â€Å"Wanda,† Jamie exhaled when he saw me. â€Å"Oh, you're okay. Oh.† He took a deep breath. I stumbled and fell to my knees beside him, dragging Ian down with me. I touched Jamie's face and felt the skin burn under my hand. My elbow brushed Doc's, but I barely noticed. He scooted away, but I didn't look to see what emotion was on his face, whether it was aversion or guilt. â€Å"Jamie, baby, how are you?† â€Å"Stupid,† he said, grinning. â€Å"Just plain stupid. Can you believe this?† He gestured to his leg. â€Å"Of all the luck.† I found a wet rag on his pillow and wiped it across his forehead. â€Å"You're going to be fine,† I promised. I was surprised at how fierce my voice sounded. â€Å"Of course. It's nothing. But Jared wouldn't let me come talk to you.† His face was suddenly anxious. â€Å"I heard about†¦ and Wanda, you know I -â€Å" â€Å"Shh. Don't even think of it. If I'd had any idea you were sick I would have been here sooner.† â€Å"I'm not really sick. Just a stupid infection. I'm glad you're here, though. I hated not knowing how you were.† I couldn't swallow down the lump in my throat. Monster? My Jamie? Never. â€Å"So I heard you schooled Wes the day we got back,† Jamie said, changing the subject with a wide grin. â€Å"Man, I wish I could have seen that! I bet Melanie loved it.† â€Å"Yes, she did.† â€Å"She okay? Not too worried?† â€Å"Of course she's worried,† I murmured, watching the cloth travel across his forehead as if it were someone else's hand moving it. Melanie. Where was she? I searched through my head for her familiar voice. There was nothing but silence. Why wasn't she here? Jamie's skin was burning where my fingers brushed it. The feel of it-that unwholesome heat-should have had her in the same panic I was feeling. â€Å"You okay?† Jamie asked. â€Å"Wanda?† â€Å"I'm†¦ tired. Jamie, I'm sorry. I'm just†¦ out of it.† He eyed me carefully. â€Å"You don't look so good.† What had I done? â€Å"I haven't cleaned up in a while.† â€Å"I'm fine, you know. You should go eat or something. You're pale.† â€Å"Don't worry about me.† â€Å"I'll get you some food,† Ian said. â€Å"You hungry, kid?† â€Å"Ah†¦ no, not really.† My eyes flashed back to Jamie. Jamie was always hungry. â€Å"Send someone else,† I told Ian, gripping his hand tighter. â€Å"Sure.† His face was smooth, but I could sense both surprise and worry. â€Å"Wes, could you get some food? Something for Jamie, too. I'm sure he'll find that appetite by the time you get back.† I measured Jamie's face. He was flushed, but his eyes were bright. He would be okay for a few minutes if I left him here. â€Å"Jamie, do you mind if I go wash my face? I feel sort of†¦ grimy.† He frowned at the false note in my voice. â€Å"Course not.† I pulled Ian up with me again as I rose. â€Å"I'll be right back. I mean it this time.† He smiled at my weak joke. I felt someone's eyes on me as I left the room. Jared's or Doc's, I didn't know. I didn't care. Only Jeb still stood in the hallway now; the others had gone, reassured, perhaps, that Jamie was doing okay. Jeb's head tilted to the side, curious, as he tried to figure out what I was doing. He was surprised to see me leave Jamie's side so soon and so abruptly. He, too, had heard the sham in my excuse. I hurried past his inquisitive gaze, towing Ian with me. I dragged Ian back through the room where the tunnels to all the living quarters met in a big tangle of openings. Instead of keeping on toward the main plaza, I pulled him into one of the dark corridors, picking at random. It was deserted. â€Å"Wanda, what -â€Å" â€Å"I need you to help me, Ian.† My voice was strained, frantic. â€Å"Whatever you need. You know that.† I put my hands on either side of his face, staring into his eyes. I could barely see a glint of their blue in the darkness. â€Å"I need you to kiss me, Ian. Now. Please.†

Conventions, The Skull Beneath The Skin

P.D. James claims to have used â€Å"the well worn conventions of the mystery to subvert them, stretch them, use them to say something true about characters, about men and women and the society in which they live† in her book ‘The Skull Beneath the Skin'. She sought out to rewrite the ‘cosy' style and she achieved this by challenging the traditional conventions. The Skull Beneath the Skin’ is almost a hybrid text because it is Contemporary but also blends classic ‘cosy’ style conventions with hard-boiled characteristics. Firstly, the fact that James has made the detective female is a significant subversion, it conveys the changing times in which it was written, 1982. During this time, roles of women and their social roles and barriers were changing rapidly, and this is reflective in the novel. As well as challenging the role of women in society another obvious challenge to the genre of crime writing is the denouement is not performed at the end of the novel, as is usually the case for many traditional ‘cosy' novels, but is instead closer to the middle crisis and unravelling of the case. Cordelia does not perform the resolution herself and no other guests are present during its unfolding. Instead, Ambrose undertakes the denoument, much to the embarrassment and fallibility of Cordelia. Other slight subversions of the genre include the fact that Cordelia Gray has an uneasy past and she lacks the intellectual capacity of the traditional cosy detective and the isolated setting at Sir Ambrose Gorringe's Victorian castle is a convention of the cosy but the blending of the cosy with the gothic genre challenges the norm for crime writing. On the other hand occasionally a convention was seen to be adhered too which is often hard to avoid. In the Skull beneath the Skin Society is left unstable, as Ambrose was never put behind bars. The killings weren’t really justified by the characters, or justified in a way we could understand as normal people. This convention holds true to Contemporary Crime Fiction.

Free Essays on Future Directions for Retail Design Management

How consumers are affected by their environments, and the apparent influence these settings have on their ensuing consumption, has been the focus of debate in numerous academic studies. This work frequently cites the importance of a multiplicity of elements which act as a mnemonic device, and catalyst for behaviour. But seldom have these elements been interpreted and scrutinised. More often, the architectural features and atmosphere that surrounds the consumer is represented in an all-inclusive fashion, and termed the "inanimate environment". The marketing literature, in particular, appears to overlook many issues relating to the physical setting (Newman, et al., 1994b), and as Foxall (1992) postulates, lacks an understanding of specific consumer situations and the context in which these actions take place. The prevailing paradigm adopted by models of consumer behaviour focuses on the cognitive dimension (Foxall, 1995; p. 5). Consumer choice is thus depicted as a problem-solving and decision-making sequence of events, which is determined largely by the consumer's mental actions; goal-directed, and the rational processing of information (Howard, 1983). Although the study of consumer individuality and perceptual constructs is highly important, and helps to build a broader foundation for the development of theory, the large majority of frameworks merely provide an interpretive function and seldom display predictive capability; models should have the capability to predict behaviour as well as explain it (Zaltman and Wallendorf, 1983; p. 623). Indeed, a greater understanding of the processes at work in, for example, a service setting could be elicited from noncognitive explanations. These may supply definitions of the sorts of physical cues (stimulants) that influence a consumer's perception s during the consumption phase, adding (as Bitner (1990; 1992) theorises) significantly to the outcomes. Thus far, consumer research has fail... Free Essays on Future Directions for Retail Design Management Free Essays on Future Directions for Retail Design Management How consumers are affected by their environments, and the apparent influence these settings have on their ensuing consumption, has been the focus of debate in numerous academic studies. This work frequently cites the importance of a multiplicity of elements which act as a mnemonic device, and catalyst for behaviour. But seldom have these elements been interpreted and scrutinised. More often, the architectural features and atmosphere that surrounds the consumer is represented in an all-inclusive fashion, and termed the "inanimate environment". The marketing literature, in particular, appears to overlook many issues relating to the physical setting (Newman, et al., 1994b), and as Foxall (1992) postulates, lacks an understanding of specific consumer situations and the context in which these actions take place. The prevailing paradigm adopted by models of consumer behaviour focuses on the cognitive dimension (Foxall, 1995; p. 5). Consumer choice is thus depicted as a problem-solving and decision-making sequence of events, which is determined largely by the consumer's mental actions; goal-directed, and the rational processing of information (Howard, 1983). Although the study of consumer individuality and perceptual constructs is highly important, and helps to build a broader foundation for the development of theory, the large majority of frameworks merely provide an interpretive function and seldom display predictive capability; models should have the capability to predict behaviour as well as explain it (Zaltman and Wallendorf, 1983; p. 623). Indeed, a greater understanding of the processes at work in, for example, a service setting could be elicited from noncognitive explanations. These may supply definitions of the sorts of physical cues (stimulants) that influence a consumer's perception s during the consumption phase, adding (as Bitner (1990; 1992) theorises) significantly to the outcomes. Thus far, consumer research has fail...