Jeb Bush Net Worth

Jeb Bush Net Worth Jeb Bushs net worth is at least $19 million and as much as $22 million, according to tax returns made public by his presidential campaign in 2015 and public remarks by his aides. The disclosures showed Jeb Bushs net worth grew dramatically in the eight years of private-sector work following his departure as governor of Florida in 2007. Sources of Net Worth in Financial Industry Bush has earned his money in the private sector from speaking and consulting work in the financial services industry, including private equity. Among the firms hes been associated with are  Lehman Brothers and Barclays. Bush was worth only $1.3 million when he left the Florida governors mansion in 2007. He  was paid more than $28 million since leaving office, according to a New York Times analysis in 2014. That included $3.2 million from serving on the boards of public companies and giving more than 100 speeches for which he was paid at least $50,000 each. His pursuit of wealth is well documented and will likely become a point of contention should he seek any public office in the future. Why a Large Net Worth Can Be Bad In Politics Bushs net worth became an issue for him in the 2016 presidential race. Thats because of his reported aggressive quest for wealth in the years since he left the governors mansion in Florida. Some political analysts said they believed Bush would face similar hurdles connecting to middle-class Americans as did 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, one of the wealthiest candidates to seek the White House in modern history. â€Å"Running as the second coming of Mitt Romney is not a credential that’s going to play anywhere, with Republicans or Democrats. Not only would this be problematic on the campaign trail, I think it also signals someone who isn’t seriously looking at the presidency or he wouldn’t have gone down this path,†Ã‚  Republican consultant  John Brabender told Bloomberg Politics in 2014. Jeb Bush Takes Flack For Rush to Make Money Bush entered the Florida governors mansion in 1999 worth about $2 million, according to published reports detailing his personal finances. In his eight years as governor, Bush would tell reporters his family finances suffered because of his public service, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He left office with a net worth of $1.3 million. In their book about the 2012 presidential campaign, Double Down, journalists  Mark Halperin and John Heilemann describe Bushs quest for wealth as a driving factor behind his decision not to seek the Republican nomination that year. He said he wanted to pursue greater wealth instead. The former Florida governor was telling everyone the same thing hed told Romney: he planned to stay on the bench. It wasnt so much concerns about a Bush hangover that were keeping Jeb there. It was his bank account. You dont understand, Bush would say to the Republican poo-bahs begging him to run. I was in the real-estate development business in my state. There was a huge bubble, but I missed out because I was governor for eight years. So Im starting from scratch. If, God forbid, Im in an accident tomorrow- Im in a wheelchair drooling, saliva coming from my mouth- whos going to take care of me? What are my wife and kids going to do? Ive got to look after my family. This is my chance to do it.

Supply Chains Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Supply Chains - Essay Example Consumers are also inquiring about environmental strategies from the companies since they are aware of the global warming and the ecological matters. Companies will have to explain to the consumers how green their production processes are and how their waste materials are recycled. Supply Chains and networks Supply chains and networks plan is the act of finding and reducing services in the supply chain. In the plan, the mode of transportation, how to look for the market and the nature of the services are determined to provide the best service to the customer at the reduced cost possible. Two plants can produce a commodity and it can be supplied to three different chains before it gets to the customer. The plan offers the most convenient and efficient means to reduce such inconveniences. A good plan improves a company’s supply chain in the following areas Minimized costs Reduced account levels Low transport costs Good asset returns Good and reliable customer service A company e njoys competitive advantage when its goods and services are of better quality and prove to be acceptable by the consumer. A company’s competitive advantage can be determined by - Time- this is when a company can produce and process more goods quicker than the other processes. This advantage improves the profits and the product value. Cost- this is when a company spends less in the processing than the other. Cost advantage occurs where there is a better mechanized procedure and good mechanization which enhance competence. Quality Advantage- this is where a bigger company produces goods with less faults that the substandard ones. A company should ensure that all products of the same brand are of the same quality and result. The quality of the goods or commodities and their delivery is determined by the following factors:- Accessibility of resources When there are readily available raw materials, the cost of fetching for the materials is greatly reduced. Transport costs and the labour cost is greatly reduced. This also affects the quality of the goods supplied and how they are delivered to the consumer. Amount of purchases The amount of purchases a company produces greatly affects the quality and the distribution. A company delivers its products to the consumer depending on the necessity of the goods. Corporate responses Changes in climate have brought concern to business because it presents threats to companies (e.g. oil companies). In the 21st century, environmental dilapidation cost of materials and energy rise, in search of economic development have turned out to be clearer. Increased greenhouse emissions, destruction of the ozone layer and forests prove that there is a problem. Figures from the World Bank have shown that poverty has risen and many people live on fewer than 2 dollars each day (Wilsner 2011). This shows that issues of consumer options and control have been neglected. It is now the main challenge for humanity to find reasonable and susta inable behaviours to manufacture survive and consume. In 1992 a corporate, Rio Earth Summit assumed search of sustainability as its main aim. The challenge is to turn the goals into reality in the wake of hostile atmosphere and the global economy (Branch 2008). Social and ecological issues have been key hindrance to companies marketing their goods. The key issues in a supply chain management include- The planned

Whole food study case Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Whole food - Case Study Example gh it recovered and has started increasing its profits from an average of $300 million to $500 million, it has yet to clear its debts of over $700 million which were accumulated during the period mentioned above. There are several ways to solve this problem and ensure that even if the economy plunges again, they will have no debts accumulating on top of what they have now. The first way is to dispose of some of their assets which are not helping them much through selling them. This is bound to bring in a bit of money to offset the debt. The other way is to increase the number of shares to the public and this will raise money. It can also increase gradually the prices of their commodities especially now that people like the natural and organic products they sell. Even if the money will not repay all the debt, it will at least offset a large sum of money and the rest can be paid off slowly through the proceeds from the company. Thompson, Arthur, Margaret Peteraf, John Gamble and A. J. Strickland. Crafting & Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2011.

Case study 3 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Case study 3 - Essay Example Medicaid incentive program is administered on a voluntary basis by both the state and territories (Hsiao & Hing, 2012). Eligible professionals have a chance of participating for a period of six years, until 2021, and it is not a must for participation years to be consecutive. Medicaid incentive program is suitable for UMUC Family Clinic for improvement of patient care as outlined in the meaningful use stage 1. The deadline for eligible professionals to start their participation is 2016; the clinic needs to concentrate on attaining the core and menu objectives and clinical quality measures (CQMs) requirements in order to receive incentives payments, of up to $63,750 under medical EHR incentive program for a period of six years (Hsiao & Hing, 2012). The program allows eligible professionals to receive incentive payments as a result of having successfully adopted, implemented or upgraded certified technology of EHR during the first year of participation as well as demonstrating meaningful use (Marcotte et al, 2012). In case the clinic will not be able to satisfy meaningful use, its profession practice will have to incur expenses of up to $21,250.00 in 2015. Medication process at the clinic will be entered using CPOE. The technology has proved successful in keeping record of medication details of over 30% patients. The clinic will rely on medicaid incentive to increase the number of medical entry of patients using CPOE. The clinic will rely on using certified HER technology to submit all permissible prescriptions recommended by eligible professions. The program will enable the clinic to improve on quality and safety as well as efficiency while attending to patients. Aggregate of numerator and denominator as well as exclusions will be provided to either CMS or the state by attestation electronically. The reported information reveals clinical quality measures being undertaken by the clinic. The report is necessary for the state

Communitarianism: The Best Political Ideology?

Communitarianism: The Best Political Ideology? Political ideologies have developed over the decades and new political ideologies have been introduced into political theory and philosophy. Communitarianism is a recent development in political ideology that is viewed by many as a criticism of liberalism. It draws on ideas from previous schools of thought. It revolves around the community and the individuals comprising it, rather than the individual being at the center, which is what liberalism emphasizes. Although communitarianism is mainly viewed as a critique of liberalism, it draws similarities from other schools of thought such as conservatism and feminism. This paper will argue that communitarianism is the most suitable ideology for individuals due to its examination of individuals and their freedom through the sense of community in the society. To better show how communitarianism is more suitable, I will examine the context of individuals and communities presented in the communitarian thought and how it differs from the liber al and libertarian sense sense. I will then focus on the libertarian idea of distributive justice and the communitarian critique of it. Lastly, I will examine how communitarianism emphasizes the importance of social responsibility, which other ideologies lack, and how that responsibility achieves freedom and justice for individuals. Lastly, I will show how environmentalism can be advocated through communitarian ideologies. Thus, communitarianism coffers a better and a more improved ideology for individuals compared to other ideologies. First, it is important to address the issue of communitarianism being a school of thought. Communitarianism developed as a criticism to liberalism. Just like conservatism, it deals and identifies itself more through criticisms than with its own established ideals. Several people have argued that this is considered a weakness for communitarianism; that communitarianism fails as an alternative to liberalism, and that it doesnt define itself clearly or sufficiently.  [1]  However, as this paper will show, this is not true. Communitarianism is an ideology on its own, since it offers new ideas through its criticisms of liberalism. Furthermore, Mariam seems to draw from the liberal perspective in saying that there are many forms of communities and it is unclear what form communitarianism promotes.  [2]  This is also similar to a dilemma of communitarianism, which Kenny mentions, of whether communitarianism is an anti-liberal force or not.  [3]  But, unlike liberalism, it does n ot promote a universal ideal that predominates over all. It recognizes the differences in communities and thus depends on a particular society. It is an ideology which depends on particularity, rather than universality. Thus, communitarianism differentiates itself more on what it disagrees with in liberalism rather than proposing a new theory of political philosophy.  [4]   Communitarianism is defined as a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and well-being.  [5]  It integrates individuals into political life through a sense of belonging and commitment to their community and the individuals within this community. Individuals are thus considered to be a part of a wider community and not an independent entity existing by themselves. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.  [6]  Liberals believe that governments should exist for the sole purpose of protecting the individuals from harm by other individuals. That should be the sole purpose for the existence of governments, since liberals are skeptic about any forms of government. This is due to the belief that governments of any sort are in them selves a threat to the people and their freedom, which can only be achieved if intervention was kept to a bare minimum and only for fundamental matters that would help promote and maintain individual freedom. From this stems a fundamental difference which is subject to debate: individuals and the government. Liberalism detaches the individual from the government and only considers individuals and how they can maintain their freedom. However, communitarianism criticizes this detachment and instead focuses on a sense of community amongst the people. This community allows for the people and the government to interact in a broader sense. Communitarianism not only criticizes this, but it criticizes the fact that Liberalism, in basing itself on the rights of the individual, has fundamentally misunderstood social life and has produced a political philosophy that is itself the cause of the problems with which we are beset.  [7]  Thus, Liberalism does not create any social order or any sense of a society by basing itself solely on the individual. Liberals and Libertarians have mostly argued for this need to look only at the individual. Right Libertarians (and Nozick in particular) have argued that the government should only use its power to maintain self-ownership rights and to protect individuals property. In The Entitlement Theory of Justice, Nozick argues in his theory of justice, that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or by just rectification of justice.  [8]  Hence, he is critical of Rawlss idea of the redistribution of justice and wealth.  [9]  Nozick believes that anyone who earns something justly should not be held responsible for other individuals. Thus, if all property, for example, ends up with one person, then that does not call for taxation or any action. Furthermore, by using the Wilt Chamberlain example, Nozick shows how equality results into inequality through freedom. This means that people originally start by having complete freedom to make their own choices, but then they choose to give up that freedom. Th us, to redistribute Chamberlains or any justly earned wealth is a violation of peoples rights.  [10]   However, what Nozick is implying is injustice to the individuals themselves. If one person owns everything, then people will be reduced to slaves and work for that one person who owns all the resources, and they will not be free. Communitarians have criticized this libertarian idea of distributive justice and individual rights [because it] works to divide the citizens of the modern state against one another, thereby fostering isolation, alienation, and apathy rather than commitment to a common civic enterprise.  [11]  Thus, the sense of community and the freedom that it entails for the individuals of the society disappears. Libertarianism only focuses on individual rights as being the most important ones, which does not work, especially in pluralistic societies today, which need both individuals and the government to have responsibilities and rights, and not just a focus on one individual who claims they obtained something justly. It is difficult to assess what is just, which is another limitation to Nozicks argument. People can easily claim that they obtained something justly, even if they did not. Thus, a community needs to exist where all individual freedoms are guaranteed, instead of questionable individual rights. Communitarians draw heavily on conservative ideas about the importance of tradition [and society] in providing a coherent framework of values within which we can live.  [12]  Liberalism tends to focus on the individual for the individual and their right, but this is contingent upon cultural factors.  [13]  The society and culture in which individuals are raised in [are] important when determining their autonomy.  [14]  Consequently, Individuals cannot detach themselves from the society, because their individual rights are contingent upon their society and their surroundings. People are bound to society just as they are bound to family. As Finlayson notes of Oakeshott, conservative individuals prefer the familiar to the unknown;  [15]  a society with traditions where people are bound is more familiar than an individualistic society which seeks universalism. Yet, these traditions and values are not always concrete for people to attach themselves to. One evident criticism of conservatism is the fact that people do not always follow their traditions. People can just as easily detach themselves from certain traditions, which themselves are always changing and never remain the same. Fahad criticizes Scrutons argument by stating that one is born with the capacity to run ones own life, and with free will and volition to choose from an ethical or political framework to adhere to.  [16]  The fact that Scruton emphasizes the need for people to follow their society and the traditions as given, leave Scruton unable to even question the very liberalism that serves as the foundation for his ability to construct a philosophy in the first place.  [17]   Scrutons arguments for following the norms of the society are extreme. People are not just programmed to accept everything without questioning it or improving it. However, Fahad seems to argue that people can make their own choices and decisions based on their own free will, which is unlikely. As communitarians argue, people are influenced by their societies, and this influence plays greatly onto the choices that people believe they are making out of their own free will. People can have a freedom of choice, as he points out, however this will not emerge out of nothing. Even though people might think that they are making a purely objective decision, there is always some subjectivity that will come into play. Communitarians draw from the conservative thought the importance of traditions; however, people are not obliged to follow these traditions. They exist to unify the people and create a sense of belonging in the society. Furthermore, they affect the way people make decisions and how they essentially live their lives, as some traditions cannot be eliminated from peoples lives. This draws on Rawlss use of the veil of ignorance. This is an imaginary veil where people are in an original position where they know nothing about anything that defines who they are  [18]  . People are supposed to ignore these ideals and values and focus on remaining neutral and objective in order to make decisions that would benefit all the people. These decisions are supposedly right in that people reach them through rational and selfless thinking. Besides it being a difficult practical concept, it is also flawed. People cannot just assume that they know nothing about their lives and forget everything they are connected to. Their society and ideals will come into play at some point and it will influence their decisions. It is false to assume that a rational decision is a right decision just because it is rational. People cannot be fully rational, they will always have something affecting the way they think, no matter how insignificant it might seem. Therefore, communitarianism stresses on the importance of the society in individuals lives because the society shapes people and many things within the society can easily have an impact on them. Rawlss theory of justice through the veil of ignorance is thus inaccurate, because, as communitarians argue, the standards of justice must be found in forms of life and traditions of particular societies and hence can vary from context to context.  [19]  Furthermore, communitarians see the moral agency of making decisions always existing within the context of a particular structure of traditions and practices, manifested in the life of a community.  [20]   What communitarianism advocates (and conservatism lacks), is open discourse and an emphasis on social responsibility (which liberalism lacks). One way of emphasizing the importance of society for individuals is through the recognition of individuals roles towards their society. For communitarians, the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect.  [21]  This respect would lead to an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others. Individuals will also obtain civic responsibilities and the development of self-government skills, as well as the habit of governing ourselves, and learn to serve others not just self.  [22]  Governments, too, will have obligationsincluding the duty to be responsive to their members and to foster participation and deliberation in social and political life.  [23]   The communitarian perspective, in a sense, mandates attention to what is often ignored in contemporary policy debates: the social side of human nature.  [24]  This social side shows how individuals and governments both have responsibilities towards each other. It does not only assume that individual rights are important, because as Scruton points out, by enlarging the space around one person it diminishes the space enjoyed by his neighbor.  [25]  It can be seen that communitarianism goes further than the conservative idea of following traditions; it emphasizes on the social aspect of the people and what the people want. It also criticizes the narrowness of liberalism by just assuming that only the individual matter and that the government is there to protect it from injustice only. However, it is not only a one way street; individuals have rights and responsibilities, which is important to realize. A focus is made on individual liberty, but that liberty is achieved with the s ociety, not as liberalism promotes it of being just a focus on one individual.  [26]   One could argue that the notion of civic responsibilities and virtue is that of republicanism. As Kenny points out, communitarianism has some distinctly non-liberal antecedents as well.  [27]  Also, writers of classical republicanism emphasize ideas such as the importance of civic virtue and political participation,  [28]  amongst other ideas. However, civic republicanism stresses the importance of independence from arbitrary power. Ideologies stress on the importance of the individuals being at the center, and the relationship with the polity in terms of rights and responsibilities between the two. However, republicanism draws on more liberal ideas of civic virtue and a polity made by the people. Communitarianism, on the other hand, focuses more on the importance of traditions and values in order to have civic virtue. It focuses more on individuals and their individual and social responsibility, whereas republicanism focuses on individuals responsibility towards other indivi duals only. However, both communitarianism and republicanism stem from an uneasiness with liberalism.  [29]  Both ideologies criticize liberalism for being guilty of an excessive or misguided emphasis on the rights and liberties of the individual that nurtures a socially corrosive form of individualism.'  [30]  Yet, as Dagger points out, how liberalism is flawed and how it should be fixed is what communitarians and republicans disagree not only with each other, but among themselves.  [31]   According to Kenny, Rawlss defines the self through the original position as imagined as the subject of social contract where the original position would serve to strip it from social and cultural attributes.  [32]  Communitarians question this individualistic self and how it can be said to exist prior to or outside social settings and communal attachments.  [33]  The existence of these settings leads to the development of the individual and his objectives. It is only a socially and intersubjectively constituted self [that] can plausibly be said to possess goals.  [34]  What liberals promote is a political society in which there are contracts made by sovereign individuals who are accorded a number of basic rights as well as the right of exit.  [35]  This just separates the individual and the state, with all the benefits going to individuals with nothing to the government. But, individuals, according to liberals, are not free if they do not have the free will to make their own choices, without any effects from the outside. According to Gaus and Courtland, Green mentions that individual is only free if they are self-directed or autonomous.  [36]  Their actions must be their own and not influenced by anything else. That is why Rawls stresses the importance of not including anything in the original position. This is a negative notion of freedom  [37]  , where people can pursue their own ends, and thus do not follow custom.  [38]  Another form of liberal freedom is what Vallentyne echoes of Berlin as negative freedom, to pursue ones interests without harming others through ones fundamental purposes.  [39]  Thus, it can be argued, that if the self was influenced by society, then this influence can limit if from being free. It can for example, constrain someone through certain traditions which might be false. People will thus be shaped by tho se traditions and unable, or unwilling, to break free from them and develop their own. Yet, liberalisms view of freedom, whether positive or negative, is both problematic. In the negative sense, people are allowed to do anything without any consequences or constraints to their actions. Likewise, in the positive sense, people are expected to know when to limit themselves and it is hard to assume all individuals are able to control infividuals. In the communitarian sense, people would have to include some part of their traditions and values to pursue their goals. Sometimes it is even helpful to have some guidance when making decisions. The self is thus, in the communitarian sense, both pluralistic and particularistic: many of the features of persons are shaped by the intersubjective values and traditions of the communities into which they are born.  [40]  Moreover, if traditions are false, people would draw from the surroundings of their environment to develop new beliefs that they believe is right; their own beliefs do not just exist. To illustrate, a community can exist where everyone smokes as a rule. A person who thinks that this tradition is false would refer to the harm it causes to people to develop his own belief. The issue of freedom is also related to multiculturalism. It deals with pluralistic societies, where the population may come from many different cultural backgrounds; and peoples are increasingly asserting their need for a state that recognizes this differentiation.  [41]  Although the self is pluralistic in the communitarian thought, it is hard to claim that these traditions in the community are pluralistic. As Young explains, seeking equality and ignoring differences would allow for the development of cultural imperialism by allowing norms expressing the point of view and experience of privileged groups to appear neutral and universal.  [42]  A view of a group as the other would develop. Although this is a critique towards the liberal idea of universalism and its claim of neutrality, it can also be critically examined through a communitarian perspective. Since communitarians emphasize the importance of traditions and values in a society, it can be difficult to agree on thes e traditions. Besides them being right or wrong, a society is at risk of having the traditions of on group to dominate over it. If, for instance, one community mainly practices one religion, it would be difficult to be neutral or to have the acceptance of the people if the laws and regulations rely on that religion. Thus, there would be no sense of community between the people and the government, but rather a responsibility to abide by laws that were set by a majority. Whether this is intentional by the people or not, it still entails that some would better be able to achieve their capacities than others. Even though communitarianism criticizes the liberal idea of a universalism and neutrality, Youngs argument entails that some groups in society might not be able to fully participate in the public sphere without abiding by the dominant thought. Since communitarianism does not in itself address the issue of multiculturalism and dominance, I believe that this idea of roles by the people and the society would entail that equality would be considered. As Caney would point out, one critique that communitarians make is that there is a meta-ethical claim emphasizing political principles should mirror shared understandings.  [43]  People should take into account the social responsibilities that they have, since it is not a one-way responsibility from the government, which would ensure that there should be some equality. However, Youngs argument is a valid one and is a worry to any political ideology, since in any society; there can always be a majority, regardless of whether it follows liberal or conservative ideologies. However, it is very hard to assess how this should be addressed. She argues that there should be a positive discrimination towards the minority groups. Yet, this is difficult in itself for two reasons. The first is that it is hard to choose which group is a minority. There are many factors like numerical and cultural, for example, that can be taken into account. Thus, there are more minority groups than those which exist today because there are people advocating for those minorities. The second is that where should we stop in giving these minorities rights, or to create one public sphere where are differences are recognizes. In the communitarian sense, some accommodations can be made to try and limit differences between groups. Lastly, the communitarian ideology can offer an argument for environmentalism. As Hayward discusses, environmentalism refers to the belief that environmental protection is a significant ethical, social and political value.  [44]  However, it is often ignored because it is viewed as a discrete [issue] for policy-makers to deal with.  [45]  Yet, from a communitarian perspective, it can be integrated as part of the social responsibility of individuals in relation to ecologism. The ecological argument of humans as a part of nature  [46]  shows how there can be a social responsibility from individuals towards nature because that would ensure that the society they live in is a safe one. However, from a liberal point of view, this responsibility would not exist as individuals would only consider what is best for them, even if that comes at the cost of nature and the environment. In conclusion, communitarianism was originally a critique of liberalism, but it quickly developed to be an ideology with its own unique ideas that are best towards individuals. It looks at individuals as being at the center, but at the same time, it also looks at the community being in that center. Although many of its critiques are towards liberalism and the idea of the individualistic self existing with universal ideals, communitarianism can be critically examined through different ideologies. It focuses on how Individuals and the government coexist together with both having responsibilities and rights that are preserved through the community. It draws on conservative ideas of having a sense of traditions and values that are maintained through the community. These traditions and what shapes people are important to how individuals make decisions in life, which is not done through the liberal objective sense. It also includes individuals into the political life, like republicanism, b ut this involvement is through the sense of the community and what is best for the whole community. Communitarianism also focuses on how individuals can obtain freedom through this interaction with the society, and not just by limiting themselves to their individualistic goals. Hence, communitarianism is the most suitable ideology for individuals because it preserves their freedom and offers a sense of community between all individuals in the society. Word Count: 3730 (with footnotes: 3924).

Analysis Of Morality :: essays research papers fc

The Republicans Were Right, But –   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The sanctity of the oath† (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, â€Å"The Republicans Were Right, But.† I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The rhetorical situation in any given essay or editorial contains three main parts: the author, the audience, and the medium. The author of this essay, Garrison Keillor, was born and raised in Anoka, Minnesota in 1942. As Mr. Keillor points out quite clearly in the first paragraph of his essay, he is a democrat. According to the Minnesota Public Radio home page, he hosts a weekly talk show on public radio called â€Å" A Prairie Home Companion.† He also hosts the â€Å"Writers Almanac,† a daily five-minute program. He is a frequent contributor to Time Magazine, and the author of ten books, including Lake Wobegon Days (1985). Keillor’s recording of Lake Wobegon Days received a Grammy award; he has also received two ACE awards for cable TV and a George Foster Peabody Award. In 1994, he was inducted to the Radio Hall of Fame at the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia). The intended audience for this essay is people that are interested in current affairs. The medium for this essay is TIME Magazine, a general news purpose magazine. Given the rhetorical situation, his argument appears to be very specific.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To argue is to attempt to convince a reader to agree with a point of view, to make a decision, or to pursue a particular course of action (Eschholz, Rosa, and Clark 429). In an argument there are three main elements: ethos, logos, and pathos. In ethos, the author tries to build his/her character to the audience. In this particular essay, Mr. Keillor does not build his credibility very well. The only information he reveals is that he is a democrat, which can be found in paragraph one of the essay. The details of Mr.

Literary Analysis of Tell-Tale Heart

A Doll's House was a controversial play in its time because of Ibsen's bold questioning of society's basic rules and norms. One of the most pressing questions in the play is that of the unequal treatment of women. Ibsen questions Is it right to treat women as inferiors? ‘ Through the relationship between Nora and Helmer, Ibsen presents unequal power sharing in a negative light, trying to provoke the audience into questioning what was accepted as the norm in that period. One of the subtler techniques used is Helmer's language and diction.He uses animal terms to refer to her, such as skylark' and squirrel'. This suggests that Helmer does not love Nora as an equal, and treats her like a pet'. Worse, he calls her his possession', as if she were a thing, not an individual with her own separate identity. This use of patronizing, demeaning terms highlights the social norm of treating women as inferior, and provokes the audience to question the validity of that norm. Moreover, for the larger part of the play, Helmer is portrayed as having the most power in the relationship.He controls all the money, and gives it to Nora as gifts. Nora's statement that she has lived by performing tricks' and by being pretty and charming, makes the audience aware of the demeaning, unethical aspects of inequality, and again questions the validity of this social norm, which, unfortunately, has not been completely eroded even in modern society. Nevertheless, the question of inequality between the sexes is only part of the major question Ibsen poses: Is it right to force people into social roles without giving them the freedom to explore who they are and what they want to be? Ibsen presents this question by first characterizing Nora and Helmer as faithful conformists to social roles and then dramatizing the negative effects of those roles in an effort to provoke audiences of that period to think about their deeply ingrained beliefs. Nora seems to fulfill the role of a dutiful wife and mother. She does not work but stays at home and takes care of her children. Ibsen then reveals that, firstly, she is not really fulfilled, or self-actualized, through this role.The role of wife and mother does not bring out all her potential. He shows this through Nora's fond reminiscence about doing a bit of copying' to pay off her debts: It was almost like being a man'. She finds the experience fun' and gratifying, and does it for a good cause. However, she has to work in secret as her role does not permither to work. The audience is shown the negative effects of confining men and women to stereotypical roles. Ibsen in questioning, through Nora, whether it is right to constrain men and women to certain roles in society.Moreover, Ibsen reveals that forcing individuals into roles because of gender might be an exercise in futility as not everyone is suitable for their roles. Nora, for instance, in not a very good mother. The maids spend more time than her with the children (though it is possible that this is also a social convention), and she plays with them like dolls'. Helmer, too, is a victim of society's expectations. He tells Nora that he loves her so much he wishes that she were in danger so that he could risk everything' for her sake.He sees himself as bold and strong, doubtless part of his identity he has received from social conditioning. However, when Nora is really in danger from Krogstad's blackmailing, Helmer's reaction shows the audience that he is a coward and cares only for himself when there is danger. He is unable to fulfill the role expected of him. This not only shatters the perfect model husband stereotype, but also leads the audience to question whether it is right to force such unjust expectations onto individuals without giving them freedom to grow by themselves.Finally, this leads us to the most important question Ibsen presents: Should individuals not be free to create their own identity, uninfluenced by society? ‘ We have seen t he negative effects of Nora being forced into the role of wife and mother. She feels suppressed as can be seen through her comments that she would simply love to say Damn' in front of Helmer (in that period, the word damn' was seen as extremely rude and vulgar). She enjoys working, but cannot because her role does not allow her to.The question presented here is that would it not be better if society did not determine roles based on gender and let individuals decide by themselves what they want to be? Ibsen reveals a common failing of society through Nora's reminiscences of childhood: her father formed his opinions, and Nora just accepted them, never voicing her own. And when she married Helmer, she merely acquired his tastes'. She has had no chance of gaining of more experience of the world and to learn more about herself. All those years, she has been what her father and husband, symbols of society, want her to be.The aforementioned question is presented beautifully in that last co nflict between Helmer and Nora. Helmer says that Nora's sacred duty' is to her husband and children. Nora replies that first and foremost [she is] an individual', and leaves her doll's house' to gain experience and knowledge, and to find out more about herself. The play does not tell us her eventual fate. Such as ending merely presents the audience with questions regarding the validity of deeply ingrained social norms, roles and values, and whether it would be better if individuals, like Nora, used their freedom to find their own way in life.These questions were highly relevant in the period in which A Doll's House was written, and are still significant now. Even in modern society, men and women are still expected to take on certain roles and identities and are persecuted for going against cultural and social norms. And because these questions are presented through the lives of ordinary men and women like us, whom we can identify with and whose situations are not so dissimilar to ou r own, those questions become even more significant to us and the problems we face in our daily lives.