Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Redemption and survival Essay Example for Free

Redemption and survival Essay The novel by Victor Hugo entitled Les Miserables is story that looks into the life of John Valjean and his exploits towards awakening, redemption and survival. It depicts his transformation from a galley prisoner towards a new man. It conveys the different decisions and actions committed by a man towards choosing his path in life. Likewise, there are other characters that intertwine and provide relevant impact in Jean Valjean’s life and growth as an individual. Moreover, the setting of the story outlines the significance of societal factors that has been influential in the creation of decisions and actions that transpired in the duration of the story. Analyzing the different themes presented by Hugo in this story, one significant element in present in the idea is the element of morals, values, and perceptions. Looking at it, John Valjean is convicted because of stealing bread and was sent to the galleys. Upon his escape, he became aware of the prejudice and bias that society has given him. In here, Hugo was able to showcase the transformation of Jean Valjean from a criminal into an honest man with the help of the Bishop Myriel. Hugo mentions this in the novel by saying that â€Å"Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul I am buying for you. I withdraw it from dark thoughts and from the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God! (p. 106). Another significant element that makes the book worth reading is its ability to showcase that amidst the presence of darkness and suffering, redemption do happens and it creates and avenues for change to occur. This was evident in the novel as different books presented these ideas in a different manner. For example, the suffering of Fantine and Cosette to survive was alleviated by Jean Valjean’s adoption of Cosette. Likewise, the suffering of Jean Valjean for acceptance and worth was compensated by becoming the Mayor M. Madeleine and serving the needs of people. The ability of the story to present the realities and harshness of life is also an interesting part to consider. Hugo was able to outline the significant areas that surround ones mind as he synthesizes them and provides the development for the characters. This was stated when Hugo said that â€Å"The generation now having its passing turn on earth is not compelled to abridge it for the generations, its equals after all, that will have their turn afterward . . . Hence, at certain periods, a deep chill on the magnanimous vanguard of the human race. (p. 1242). Exploring on the idea of change, I would have to agree with the idea of Hugo that it happens because of ones ability to decide for their own. Whatever the outcome may be, it is their relevant that individuals use it for their own growth. This is the process for one to cultivate the totality of humanity and what it’s supposed to be. As Hugo argues, â€Å"from one end to the other; in its whole and in its details, whatever the omissions, the exceptions, or the faults is the march from evil to good, from injustice to justice, from the false to the true, from night to day, from appetite to conscience, from rottenness to life, from brutality to duty, from Hell to Heaven, from nothingness to God† (p. 1242). Lastly, I would have to agree with the notion of Hugo that time and love can transcend betrayal and deception. This has been present and evident in various situations experienced by Jean Valjean. One significant example is the quote which says â€Å"by which the writing reversed on the blotter was corrected by the mirror and presented its original form; and Jean Valjean had beneath his eyes the letter Cosette had written Marius the evening before It was simple and devastating† (p. 1152). Though this situation did happen, Jean Valjean began to accept Marius as his own which came to a point of even rescuing him from the conflict and struggle. This is one manifestation of how the overall idea of love can help overcome and provide new avenues for change. By reading this book, I came to appreciate the situations happening around. It gave me the idea that our decisions can affect what our lives would be in the future. Likewise, it is through love, compassion and forgiveness that individuals, groups, and societies can overcome the hurdles and challenges brought about by pain, deception, deceit and violence. Overall, the book offers various areas that open up the mind of readers of the possibilities and realities that are happening. Hugo was able to convey a mixture of feelings that cultivate a total experience once reading the novel. In here, he combines the familiar facets of politics, religion, romance, and social situations that make the process of understanding significant and timeless in its own right. To conclude, the themes and issues presented in the book can be summarized by Hugo’s quote which says â€Å"The history of men is reflected in the history of cloacae† (p. 1462). In here, it just shows how one can grow and pursue life depending on what we take inside. It means that the actions, values, ideals, and perceptions that we accommodate and acquire dictate what we are and what we can become. This influences our actions and decisions in life as we find new ways to live according to the standards and changes happening.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Family or Finance :: essays research papers

Family or Finance, Which Should Come First?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When looking at custody cases in America today, one must wonder what the courts find more important when deciding the fate of these children, family or finance? The issue has been raised that the majority of the time, the mother gets custody of the children. Should this be so? Should we at this time, a time where we are trying to break through the molds of the mother being the only caregiver, automatically assume that the mother should gain custody of the children? Or, should we begin to look at the merits of allowing fathers to gain custody of the children? When looking at these cases, cases where both the mother and father desire custody of the children, how do you decide who should win? Should money be the primary factor? Should family be the primary factor? Or should the kids’ desires be the primary factor?  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  All these question have been raised, and the courts answer is very simple. When deciding who should gain custody of the children the primary factor is â€Å"What is in the best interest of the child?† The problem to this answer is that it is too vague and doesn’t effectively answer any of the questions above. So lets look at what the courts feel is in the best interest of the children. Based on statistics from 1994, single mothers made up 6.6% of all families, while single fathers made up only 1.2%. So it would appear that mothers are more likely to end up with the children than fathers. Of course we must take into consideration the fact that not all the fathers want the children, and they go to the mother by default, and then there are the fathers that are in prison. There are also cases of the women not wanting the children as well. But we do not want to focus on these people, we are looking strictly at cases where both parents desire custody of the children. The fact is there are more single mothers than fathers, and when it comes to cases where both parents want the child, the mothers are more likely to win custody than the father. So we must determine why this is. When looking at recent statistics you can see that 52% of single mothers are below the poverty level, where only a little over 20% of single fathers fall below the level. Family or Finance :: essays research papers Family or Finance, Which Should Come First?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When looking at custody cases in America today, one must wonder what the courts find more important when deciding the fate of these children, family or finance? The issue has been raised that the majority of the time, the mother gets custody of the children. Should this be so? Should we at this time, a time where we are trying to break through the molds of the mother being the only caregiver, automatically assume that the mother should gain custody of the children? Or, should we begin to look at the merits of allowing fathers to gain custody of the children? When looking at these cases, cases where both the mother and father desire custody of the children, how do you decide who should win? Should money be the primary factor? Should family be the primary factor? Or should the kids’ desires be the primary factor?  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  All these question have been raised, and the courts answer is very simple. When deciding who should gain custody of the children the primary factor is â€Å"What is in the best interest of the child?† The problem to this answer is that it is too vague and doesn’t effectively answer any of the questions above. So lets look at what the courts feel is in the best interest of the children. Based on statistics from 1994, single mothers made up 6.6% of all families, while single fathers made up only 1.2%. So it would appear that mothers are more likely to end up with the children than fathers. Of course we must take into consideration the fact that not all the fathers want the children, and they go to the mother by default, and then there are the fathers that are in prison. There are also cases of the women not wanting the children as well. But we do not want to focus on these people, we are looking strictly at cases where both parents desire custody of the children. The fact is there are more single mothers than fathers, and when it comes to cases where both parents want the child, the mothers are more likely to win custody than the father. So we must determine why this is. When looking at recent statistics you can see that 52% of single mothers are below the poverty level, where only a little over 20% of single fathers fall below the level.

Monday, January 13, 2020

Image and Customer Satisfaction Essay

Select a restaurant where you have eaten recently. Analyze the atmosphere and physical environment of this service establishment. What image does the environment convey? Were you satisfied with the experience? Did it meet your expectations? Should the owner change anything to make the environment more appealing to customers? I recently ate at Alquimia Bistro Club at Gallery Plaza in Condado. The restaurant is a joint venture between the entrepreneur Tony Hernandez and singer Gilberto Santa Rosa. It is conveniently located on the ground floor of the building and you have the option of entering the restaurant through the main entrance or through the bar if you don’t want to enter the dining room. The dining room consists of an upper and lower level. There is a wine â€Å"cellar† which can be dined in and a room for private activities. Aside from the main dining room there is a small theater with a stage for performances. We sat in the upper level of the main dining room. The restaurant aims to provide a relaxed and comfortable yet sophisticated atmosphere. The lighting is relatively low and the music is soft and inviting. The tables are immaculately set. If all worked, had it not been for previous engagements we would have stayed well into the afternoon. The ambience was one that invited you to relax and get acquainted with friends. If satisfaction was based solely on the atmosphere then Alquimia would have been a hit, but in the end it isn’t. The food did not live up to expectations. You are led to believe that you will be taken on a journey of culinary alchemy but you are not. What you end up with are plates made up of ingredients that do not work well together. The satisfied members of the group were those that opted for the â€Å"criollo† dishes. One of my suggestions for Alquimia would be to tone down on the dishes, maybe just stick with the typical food and elaborate a bit not go off the deep end. Sometimes less is more! As for the environment the owners have the right idea. It is inviting and relaxing, you want to stay and continue to consume throughout the day with good drinks and good conversation.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Origin of Miranda Rights and Warning

Ernesto Arturo Miranda was drifter and a career criminal who from age 12 was in and out of reform schools and state and federal prisons for various crimes including auto theft and burglary and sex offenses. On March 13, 1963, at age 22, Miranda was picked up for questioning by the Phoenix police after the brother of a kidnap and rape victim saw Miranda in a truck with plates that matched the description that his sister had provided. Miranda was placed in a lineup and after the police indicated to him that he had been positively identified by the victim, Miranda verbally confessed to the crime. That's the Girl He was then taken to the victim to see if his voice matched the voice of the rapist. With the victim present, the police asked Miranda if she was the victim, to which he answered, Thats the girl. After Miranda said the short sentence, the victim identified his voice as being the same as the rapist. Next, Miranda was brought to a room where he recorded his confession in writing on forms with preprinted terms that read, †¦this statement has been made voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make can and will be used against me.   However, at no time had Miranda been told that he had the right to remain silent or that he had the right to have an attorney present. His court assigned attorney, 73-year-old Alvin Moore, tried to get the signed confessions thrown out as evidence, but was unsuccessful. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced up to 30 years in prison. Moore tried to get the conviction overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court, but failed. U.S. Supreme Court In 1965, Mirandas case, along with three other cases with similar issues, went before the U.S. Supreme Court. Working pro bono, attorneys John J. Flynn and John P. Frank of the Phoenix law firm Lewis Roca, submitted the argument that Mirandas Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. Flynns argument was that based on Miranda being emotionally disturbed at the time of his arrest and that with a limited education, he would not have knowledge of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself and that he was also not informed that he had the right to an attorney. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and in a landmark ruling in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that established that a suspect has the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights. Miranda Warning The case changed the way police handle those arrested for crimes. Before questioning any suspect who has been arrested, police now give the suspect his Miranda rights or read them the Miranda warning. The following is the common Miranda warning used by most law enforcement agencies in the United States today: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. Conviction Overturned When the  Supreme Court  made its landmark Miranda ruling in 1966, Ernesto Mirandas conviction was overturned. Prosecutors later retried the case, using evidence other than his confession, and he was convicted again and sentenced to 20 to 30 years. Miranda served 11 years of the sentence and was paroled in 1972. When he was out of prison he began selling Miranda cards that contained his signed autograph. He was arrested on minor driving offenses a few times and on gun possession, which was a violation of his parole. He returned to prison for another year and was again released in January 1976. Ironic End for Miranda On January 31, 1976, and just weeks after his release from prison, Ernesto Miranda, age 34, was stabbed and killed in a bar fight in Phoenix. A suspect was arrested in Mirandas stabbing, but exercised his right to remain silent. He was released without being charged.