What is new media Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

What is new media - Essay Example nication content, such that either unique content would be passed on to one individual at a time, or general content would be passed to many audiences at a time, but both would not occur simultaneously (Crosbie, 1998). The old media comprised of one-to-one (interpersonal communication) or one-to-many (mass communication), where the interpersonal communication would allow for passing a unique content to one person only; at a time, while the mass media would allow for the distribution of the same message to a large audience, but without the ability to make the content individualized or made unique for any single individual (Crosbie, 1998). Thus, the New Media can be defined as the mode of communication that allows for unique and general content transmission at a time, meaning that using the new media, an individual can be able to communicate a unique message to a selected individual in form of a one-to-one communication, and at the same time be able to send a general communication content to a wider audience (Crosbie, 1998). Thus, New Media is characterized by the possibility of democratization of the communication content; the possibility to send and receive communication either in the form of unique or general content for an individual. The New Media can also be defined as a creation of the technological advancement, such that it is a communication media that could not have been possible if technology did not exist (Manovich, 2001). It is possible to communicate one-to-one without any technological aid, for example through face-to-face communication of two individuals. Additionally, it is possible to communicate to a wider audience without the use of technology, for example a leader addressing a gathering. However, it is not possible to communicate a unique content to one individual and pass general information to the rest of the gathering, if technology does not exist. In this respect, New Media is the communication media that is technology-dependent, and which

Ethics in Intelligence Essay Example for Free

Ethics in Intelligence Essay On a clear, late summer day in September of 2001, the hectic yet peaceful lower portion of Manhattan, New York City was turned into the site of one of the largest mass murders in world history when terrorist attacks turned the once imposing World Trade Center complex to a smoking pile of debris and left thousands of Americans dead, physically and psychologically scarred for life. In the aftermath of this act of aggression, the United States, with the cooperation of allies around the world, launched intelligence collection efforts on a scale that had never before been seen. Some nations would be able to do so as they wished without regard for the privacy or rights of their people, but for a nation conceived in liberty and human rights as the US was, issues of ethics and the preservation of individual rights had to be balanced against the dire need to protect the masses from further violence. This research will focus on the ethics of intelligence collection in the US, Constitutional implications of these efforts for American citizens, and the consideration of how much liberty US citizens should be willing to sacrifice for the greater good. Ethics of Intel Collections, Means and Methods Intelligence gathering has always been an essential part of the preservation of American security, dating back to the days of the American colonies and beyond. In the late 1990s, for all of the violence brewing in other nations and the potential for domestic terrorism in the US, the intelligence gathering efforts of American officials consisted mostly of the analysis of data from the comfort of offices located in the US and some offices scattered across the globe. However, these efforts were initially proven to be weak by international terrorist acts against American military installations in other nations, and the original emergence of Osama Bin Laden as an international terrorist to be closely monitored. With such formidable enemies to consider, it became obvious that the old ways of gathering intelligence were badly in need of change, including the introduction of more field intelligence agents, enhancements to technology, better networking with other nations, and many clandestine activities. With the need to increase and improve all levels of intelligence gathering in the US, the question arises as to how far a nation like the US, which stands as a beacon of righteousness and safety in the world, will be willing to go to gain the level of security that is needed to protect American citizens at home and abroad? The child of this need emerged, known as the Department of Homeland Security, an organization which put on a public front of protection of the US in a manner that is illustrative of ethical behavior and forceful yet proper action. With the introduction of the Department, the public gained a higher level of confidence in the protection they would be receiving. However, many of the methods that were necessary, at least behind the scenes, were of the nature that the general public would frown upon at the very least, and rise up in heated protest against at worst if it were known the full extent of what the Department was forced to resort to in the interest of intelligence gathering. Among the steps that were taken, such actions as the monitoring of telephone and Internet communications, the detention of suspected terrorists and the like began to raise the issue of the appropriateness of such activities in line with the promises and obligations of the US Constitution. Constitutional Implications of United States Intel Collection on United States Citizens The war against terrorism is unlike any other war that the US has seen; fighting an enemy that does not wear a recognizable uniform or hails from any specific geographic location poses quite a challenge and makes the application of conventional warfare tactics all but impossible. Therefore, as with those conventional warfare methods, it is necessary for certain drastic measures to be taken. However, it is important to understand that there are Constitutional implications for such actions, especially in the areas of intelligence collection which require frequent intrusions into the privacy that Americans hold so dear and have fought and died to protect for hundreds of years. First, there are misconceptions about the Constitution that are necessary to point out. Specifically, there is a thin line between the investigation of criminal activity and suspected threats to national security, which of course are in and of themselves criminal but take on an added dimension when one realizes that the safety and future of the nation hangs in the balance. In the interest of national security, it is permissible for the surveillance of Americans, domestically and abroad without the obtaining of search warrants, which are usually the standard procedure when an American is being investigated as a possible criminal, under any ordinary circumstances. In this instance, permissible and acceptable are two entirely different things. While authorities may be allowed to basically spy on their fellow citizens so that the nation is protected, where does this leave those who are the target of the surveillance? The argument can fairly be made that if one is not doing anything wrong, if they are being monitored, they actually have nothing with which to be concerned. Further, if that surveillance yields information on other wrongdoers who are in fact a threat to America, the net result makes all of it worthwhile. The issue of habeas corpus also is a key element in the consideration of the rights the accused. In the past, this legal remedy, in place since the days of the Magna Carta, existed to protect the rights of the accused. Constitutionally speaking, it had been established in the early 1940s that habeas corpus would stand if: â€Å"(1) the conviction is void for lack o f personal or subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the statute defining the offense is unconstitutional, or the conviction was obtained in violation of a federal constitutional right; (3) the statute authorizing the sentence is unconstitutional, or the sentence was obtained in violation of a federal constitutional right; (4) the sentence is contrary to the applicable statute, in excess of the statutory maximum, or otherwise unauthorized by law; or (5) the conviction or the sentence is otherwise deemed subject to collateral attack. † In times of crisis, this right has been suspended in the interest of national security, and has been suspended in the age of terrorism due to the need to make terrorists who are evading capture by authorities accountable in courts of law for their crimes. This, also, however is one of those fine points of law that draw criticism and scrutiny in many cases because anytime a right is suspended, innocent people are affected and their rights are often sacrificed, albeit for the sake of the common good. A closer look at the underpinnings of the Constitution itself reveals some interesting powers that many do not realize exist. For example, the Constitution does in fact give Congress the right to make laws as necessary to allow the Constitution to function as it was intended. This right, however, is akin to a broad stroke of a paintbrush, when the finer details of the stroke are really where the beauty lies. In other words, on the surface, it is true that Congress possesses such power, but this is also a power that is open to interpretation and debate. Where one draws the line between permissible monitoring and the trampling of the rights of the majority is an issue with which the American people are currently wrestling and undoubtedly will continue to do so for many years to come. With this in mind, there surely must be a balance to be obtained between sacrificing for the common good and giving up everything that Americans are constitutionally guaranteed. How Much Liberty Should US Citizens Give Up Under the Notion of National Security? It has been said that liberty is something which can be gained all at once, but often is stripped away one small piece at a time, like the gradual erosion of a mighty mountain. If this is true, the question of how many small pieces the citizens of the US can give away before a landslide consumes them? After the horrible events of September 11, 2001, it became readily apparent that there was a need for American governmental agencies to gather additional power if they were to properly mount an offensive against terrorism and to avert a repeat of the horrible events of that tragic day. This need to gather additional power was viewed by many as a feeble excuse for those within the government who craved power to grab as much as they wished, regardless of the inevitable fallout. Still others saw the sacrifice of a small amount of liberty as the necessary toll that needed to be paid for a much larger amount of overall protection and the long-term survival of the US while others around the world plotted to destroy the most powerful nation on earth. Again, however, as was mentioned at the beginning of this passage, small surrenders can sometimes lead to large damage over a period of time.

Heroic Code in the Iliad and the Odyssey :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Webster’s Dictionary, a hero is defined as a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of purpose, especially if this individual has risked or sacrificed his life. In the Iliad and the Odyssey, the code which administers the conduct of the Homeric heroes is a straightforward idea. The aim of every hero is to achieve honor. Throughout the Iliad and the Odyssey, different characters take on the role of a hero. Honor is essential to the Homeric heroes, so much that life would be meaningless without it. Thus, honor is more important than life itself.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Throughout the Iliad, heroic characters make decisions based on a specific set of principles, which are referred to as the â€Å"code of honor.† The heroic code that Homer presents to readers is easy to recognize because the heroic code is the cause for many of the events that take place, but many of the characters have different perceptions of how highly the code should be regarded. Hector, the greatest of the Trojan warriors, begins the poem as a model for a hero. His dedication and firm belief in the code of honor is described many times throughout the course of the Iliad. As a reward for heroic traits in battle, prizes were sometimes awarded to victors of war. In Book 1 Achilles receives Chryseis as a prize and a symbol of honor. Heroism had its rewards and its setbacks which ultimately was the backbone of the Illiad in the case of Achilles prize. Hector, arguably the greatest Trojan warrior or even the bravest of the Homeric heroes is very fierce and f ights for what he believes is his destiny. In book VI Hector expresses his bravery when Andromache pleads with Hector not to fight when Hector says, â€Å"But I would die of shame to face the men of Troy and the Trojan woman trailing their long robes if I would shrink from battle now, a coward. Nor does the sprit urge me on that way. I’ve learned it all too well. To stand up bravely, always to fight in the front ranks of Trojan soldiers, winning my father great glory, glory for myself† (VI, 387). Achilles, the greatest of the Greek warriors, is portrayed as a hero in some ways but, on the other hand, performs some controversial acts in the Iliad. Throughout the entire Trojan war, Achilles spent most of his time pouting in his tent after Agamemnon kidnapped his prized maiden, Chryseis.

Diana in the Docks

Diana In the Dock : does privacy matter? ‘Diana' as used in the title is referring to the Former Princess of Wales ‘Princess Diana'. In November 1993 The mirror newspaper published photos of ‘princess Diana' while she was working out at a gym. These photo's were taken out of consent by Diana by the Gym owner Bryce Taylor who was paid over 100,000 pounds for the photos . Thus Princess Did had his assets frozen and sued him.Due to the fact Bryce Taylor was broke he seeded legal aid where he was provided with Geoffrey Robertson o defend him. Robertson describes this case through the use of a paradox in the opening paragraph â€Å"Diana had been the victim of a dirty trick which provided windfall profits to undeserving people† these undeserving people being ‘Bryce Taylor' and the mirror magazine. Donna's perspective is that her privacy was breached for common greed of monetary benefits by that of Bryce Taylor.However, Ironically for Bryce Taylor benefit his legal aid, lawyer Geoffrey Robertson â€Å"was the tutor of a textbook that analyses and deplored that absence of any privacy law In Britain† which represents to the reader Robertson's extents knowledge within the topic of privacy, Wealth Robertson's defense of Bryce Taylor he states when Diana places her self in the gym â€Å"It was like working out in a shop window† representing that her privacy was automatically violated and she's â€Å"nonetheless been inviting It to happen†.Thus puts us in a position to view Diana as someone who manipulates the Edie in order to suit her own ends. Robertson also states her relationship with the media as ‘a Faustian bargain' which refers to the story of Faust who sells his soul to the devil in order to gain greater power. This again supports Robertson's use of the disjunction of ‘bur In â€Å"but Diana wanted privacy only when It suited her†. Nonetheless as Robertson describes Donna's relationship with the media as ‘ a Faustian bargain' It shows that Diana had to sell her soul to the media in order to main good publicity and power.This is significantly supported by Robertson use of the metaphor In the concluding paragraph † In 1997 Diana was killed fleeing the flashbulbs† which has Robertson positions us to see Diana as someone who seeded the attention of the media and as this back fired she tried to ‘flee' where the consequence became death. Just like that of Faust who sold his soul to the devil , regretted it and was sent to hell. Therefore Robertson believes It's her own fault for her lack of privacy.

Non-Violence

With the simultaneous proliferation of technology and global-poltical danger in the modern world, strategies for countering both political oppression, and the outbreak of political violence and war are urgently needed.   Although the century which has recently slipped away — the Twentieth Century — may be remembered as â€Å"the bloodiest in history† (Martin 625), with hundreds of millions of people killed in wars and with weapons of mass destruction being â€Å"invented, built, deployed and further refined† (Martin 625) during the same century when state-sponsored genocide and terrorism became commonly known quantities.Against this backdrop of chaos, war, and an increasingly dangerous technological landscape, the philosophy of non-violence, or passive resistance, gained   an historical currency which is still unmatched. The activities of important leaders like Gandhi, King, and Mandela revealed the truly earth-changing, paradigm shifting   potential of non-violence resistance as a method for seizing social initiative and political power.Because of the actions of these three important leaders. plus a host of other lesser-known figures, and the action of millions of ordinary activists, â€Å"it can be argued that the rise of nonviolent action was one of the most important developments of the century†Ã‚   (Martin 625), and one which has tremendous potential for application in today's difficult and complex political world.While it is true enough that Gandhi, King, and Mandela over similar models of non-violent leadership and that key tenants of what might be termed a â€Å"universal† sense of non-violence pervade each leaders' philosophies, distinct differences are also recognizable   when a comparison of the three leaders' ideas, activities, and accomplishments is carried out. Such a study of similarities and differences in the philosophies and actions of these important leaders is crucial to understanding how the philosophy of non-violence may be applied in modern times as an antidote to the dangerous and oppressive climate that threatens much of the world.As noted, â€Å"Nonviolent action — including methods such as rallies, strikes, boycotts and sit-ins — has become increasingly important in the past century as a method for waging conflict and promoting social change† (Martin 625) and due to the urgent pressure caused by modern political and social challenges such as terrorism, global warming, the protection of human rights and religious freedom, adapting past approaches of non-violent action to present-day challenges may be beneficial.Non-violent activism may, in fact, help bring about important social changes: â€Å"Some areas for future expansion of the role of nonviolent action include replacing military defence, technological design, challenging capitalism, bureaucratic politics, information struggles and interpersonal behaviour† (Martin 625); the suggesti on of non-violence as an all-pervading philosophy applicable throughout the full strata of political and social issues may sound grandiose, but as we will see, this idea is actually a core-concept for the three leaders in our study.In this regard, non-violent philosophy takes it roots not in social, political or philosophical idea, but in spiritual convictions or even, spiritual revelation. An abstraction of  Ã‚   â€Å"nonviolence principles, building on the core dynamic of political jiu-jitsu in contexts where the opponent does not use physical force† (Martin 625) may be the best way to intuitively understand that non-violence does not indicate non-action of total passivity in the face of aggression. Such a distinction is difficult to pin down, but it is a crucial part of activism, manifest in the breaking of â€Å"unjust† laws, and passive resistant behaviors which, if not violent, certainly imply action by the participants.In order to shed light on some of the mo re challenging aspects of non-violent activism, such as the spiritual aspect, as well as investigate the potential application of non-violent philosophy in modern times, the following brief examination of non-violent philosophy according to each leader: Gandhi, King, and Mandela, will attempt to sketch a general idea of the similarities and differences of each leader's approach and attempt to discover if any type of universal vision of non-violent philosophy can be discovered.GANDHIFor Gandhi, non-violence arises out of an organic human impulse or † basic law of our being† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); such a conviction, foe Gandhi, is based not in genetic or biological assumptions or evidence or in logistical philosophical reasoning, but in spiritual ideas. For Gandhi, â€Å"Ahimsa (non-violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23) is the opposite of   â€Å"himsa (violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23), and the attributes of each energy are just as distinct. While Ahimsa â€Å"can be used as the most effective principle for social action, since it is in deep accord with the truth of man's nature and corresponds to his innate desire for peace, justice, order, freedom, and personal dignity† (Gandhi, and Merton 23), its opposite energy, himsa, â€Å"degrades and corrupts man† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); therefore to bring himsa energy against himsa energy would be to fight fire with fire.By contrast, the application of ahimsa or non-violent energy to the problem of himsa energy â€Å"heals and restores man's nature, while giving him a means to restore social order and justice† (Gandhi, and Merton 23). The important thing to remember here is that, for Gandhi, ahimsa and himsa energies are not metaphorical reflections or abstract concepts, they are living, spiritual realities.   Although the capacity for ahimsa resides in each person, modern society has left humanity with a much more desperate and disordered reliance on himsa e nergy.For Gandhi such an alienation of man's true capacities has resulted in a culture where â€Å"violence seems to be the very foundation of social order and is â€Å"enthroned as if it were an eternal law,† so that man is called upon by society to reject love† (Gandhi, and Merton 43) and instead embrace a social reality which is enforced by violence or by the threat of violence.To meet this himsa-driven society with ahimsa energy adn non-violence requires supreme courage on behalf of the activist. This extraordinary courage, according to Gandhi, is derived from God:This courage demands nothing short of the ability to face death with complete   Ã‚   fearlessness and to suffer without retaliation. Such a program is meaningless and   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   impossible, Gandhi thinks, without belief in God.  (Gandhi, and Merton 43)The implication in Gandhi's ideas is that the activist or the â€Å"Satyagrahi† is enabled, in fact: bound, by God to break the laws of man when they are unjust. The decision as to how it is determined that a law is unjust is murky and unclear, as we will see: this same ambiguity marks both King and Mandela's own approach to non-violent activism. The historical truth is that Gandhi made clear that each â€Å"Satyagrahi was bound to resist all those laws which he considered to be unjust and which were not of a criminal character, in order to bend the Government to the will of the people† (Gandhi 21) and it is this kind of â€Å"twisting† which comprises the active aspect of non-violent activism.KINGThe expression of non-violent activism by King relied as much on spiritual conviction as that of Gandhi. This conviction brought about a similar adherence to   the concept of breaking â€Å"unjust† laws as a method of civil disobedience. King, like Gandhi, found justification for the breaking of social laws by the invocation of Divine Power. The result was that King experienced some difficulty in ma king his racial and social activism truly universal, although such a desire to do so formed an underlying precept of his overall strategy for social and political change.In a rather unique twist of philosophy, King opted to not only resist unjust laws non-violently, but tor each out to his so-called opponents: white racists with language of reconciliation, good-will, and fellowship. King's invocations of â€Å"the good to be achieved† (Wolf, and Rosen) were powerful   counterparts to his criticisms of the social conditions he sought to transform.Since King's goal was to â€Å"to bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible† (Wolf, and Rosen) his reliance on civil disobedience and the breaking of unjust laws by Divine justification, like Gandhi's, requires a deeper examination. Such revelation is possible due to King's extensive writings; in particular his â€Å"Letter From a Birmingham Jail† a famous document where he addresses t he concern of his fellow clergymen regarding the breaking of laws by civil activists.The letter repeatedly appeals to a shared sense of religion; King also cites Biblical examples to bolster his argument.  Ã‚   Responding to the criticism that his actions and the actions of his followers, even though non-violent in practice, ultimately resulted in violence on the behalf of the white Southerners who beat and jailed the protestor (and sometimes lynched or otherwise killed African Americans), King compared the fight for civil rights with the fight of Jesus to spread the gospel.King's appeal via religion and spirituality was based in a desire for unity and understanding. While he denied accusations of extremity or of inciting violence, he admitted that the impulse for civil rights was, by his reckoning, the will   of God.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   King advises that the will of all people is toward freedom and equality.   â€Å"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro.† (King)By forwarding the notion that civil rights are an inevitable outgrowth of both God's will and the flow of history, King is, in effect, offering a justification for his tactics and philosophies regarding civil rights.The justification for the elements of passive resistance which had led to violent confrontation is also based in King's ideas of justice. King's idea is that God's law is the highest law and that man's laws may be broken when they obviously disagree with or even insult God's law.With the belief that God's Law is the highest law and that history shows that all people will struggle for freedom and liberty, and by appealing to the rational sense of justice and the emotional and spiritual senses of brotherhood and love, King attains justification for his actions but does not seek to evade or subvert laws outright.MANDELAUnlike King, Mandela called for delib erate confrontation with the forces of apartheid which apposed his view of liberation and freedom. Although he repeatedly expressed his opinion that he was not, in fact, a racist himself, Mandela's rhetoric unlike King and Gandhi's, â€Å"was more polarizing† (Wolf, and Rosen); for example, Mandela never attempted â€Å"to appeal to whites† and he sought by confrontational rhetoric coupled with non-violent activism to † through greater polarization to galvanize the situation to crisis levels, thereby compelling action by the international community† (Wolf, and Rosen) which in itself presents a divergence in thought from Gandhi and King both of whom sough reconciliation with their enemies.However, rhetoric was simply another tool in Mandela's non-violent philosophical approach. When, at key moments, he might have called for violence, in actuality, he strove for non-violent change. he might have â€Å"easily have called for a violent overthrow of the South A frican government upon his release after 27 years in prison† (Pierce 1) but rather than do so, he advocated non-violent resistance.The idea of appealing to the world community adds another dimension to the non-violent approach of activism. For Mandela, â€Å"In this scenario, â€Å"the international community† becomes subrogated to the role of â€Å"broader constituency† that Mandela evoked indirectly†Ã‚   (Wolf, and Rosen) but whose support and intervention proved crucial to his success. Because of his sometimes volatile rhetoric, Mandela took special care to â€Å"emphasize his desire for reconciliation across the divide of colour† and repeatedly â€Å"pledged himself anew to work for a multiracial society in which all would have a secure place† (Pierce 175).Contemporary Impact of Non-Violent StrategiesDespite the contributions of great thinkers and activists like those examined in the preceding, brief discussion, the fact is contemporary s ociety seems no less preoccupied with violence than ever before. By examining the media one has the distinct impression that in the world of media and media-related technology, a great deal of concern has been expressed by both everyday observers and specialists in social-psychology over the possible negative impacts that media, and in particular media portrayals of violence, may have upon small children and adolescent children.One of the most complex facets of the issue is the still-unknown impact that new technologies such as 24 hour a day cable programming, widespread Internet access, and the â€Å"digital age† in general will have on the generation of young people who are presently the first to be so overwhelmed by such widespread media and media technologies.An immersive and nearly all-pervading sense of media exists in modern homes that, in fact, the presence of media can be said to form a basis of â€Å"reality† for many people. It is this exact kind of blurred distinction between perceived reality (based on media models and information) and reality (those aspects of life which stand apart from media and media-based models).The distinction between media-reality and reality is not always clear, particularly to small children and adolescent children: â€Å"The boundaries between reality and unreality are especially permeable for small children. They are unable, through at least the age of three or four, to distinguish fact from fantasy. Even older children rarely manage to keep â€Å"real life† and vicarious experience in watertight compartments† (Bok 1999, 38) as we will see in the following discussion.The main impact repeated viewings of media violence seems to exert over small children and adolescents is the conflation of media-violence with organic psychological processes, many of which exist at such a deep, primitive psychological level in humans that manipulation of these emotions, and psychological dispositions remains, for the most part, beyond the conscious perception of the viewer. In conclusion, although the idea of media-responsibility regarding the impact of violent programming on children and young adults is often cited by critics as a form of censorship, ample scientific evidence and research exists to establish media-violence as a certain source of negative influence on young people.The fact of the matter remains despite the right of free speech that media-reality and actual reality are non-distinct at some deep, organic level in human psychology: † weeks earlier the Los Angeles police officers whose roadside beating of motorist Rodney King had been shown on TV screens the world over had been acquitted by an all-white jury[†¦]In that crisis, the boundaries between movies and reality blurred, not only for the public but also for Hollywood producers, directors, and actors who were seeing smoke rising beneath their hillside residences and hearing sirens echo up and down the canyons ,† (Bok 1999, 36); with such a confusing and agitating impact of adult professionals, what can we expect when we expose our children to the same cultural ambiguities through media?If non-violent philosophy according to Gandhi, king, and Mandela is correct then violence is not   a norm in human society, but a constructed evil. If, as the proponents of non-violent philosophy suggest, â€Å"non-violent settlement of conflict is the human norm as we well know from daily experience. We are not programmed in some genetic way to violence† (Kent) than a radical re-visioning of our self-identity and self-image as human beings must take place not only in our media and in our educational facilities, but in our individual psyches as well.The applications of non-violent strategies in contemporary culture can be thought of as being as unknown as the implications of deep-space travel because even though the contributions of such historical leaders as Gandhi, King, and Mandela reveal s the tremendous power of non-violent activism, the full impact of the philosophy as articulated by these men has far-reaching cultural, global-poltical, and spiritual implications which surpass anything which has yet occurred in history.In other words, the â€Å"pioneers† of the â€Å"modern† incarnation of non-violent strategy which we have examined: Gandhi, King, and Mandela represent not the totality of what the non-violent philosophy can or wants to attain, but the mere beginning of a global transformation which is rooted not inly in the basic moral nature of humanity, but in humanity's spiritual destiny and responsibility.Certainly individual leaders and activists continue to utilize the non-violent approach to attain important results in their areas of influence. Modern technology can also help individual activists to promote change by spreading honest information regarding the repercussions of violence and the militarization of political issues. One recent exam ple is when â€Å"a 1991 massacre in the East Timorese capital Dill was recorded on videotape and subsequently broadcast worldwide, this generated enormous support for the resistance† (Martin 625); such applications of technology by individuals represent one small but important aspect of the many avenues of potential non-violent methods of change.Other methods include educational strategies based in the ideas forwarded by Gandhi, King, and Mandela. The recognition of the historical impact of the immensely influential strategies of non-violent change and civil disobedience will also help to inform and empower individuals who, in turn, may adopt some of the strategies and ideas reflected upon in the above discussion to help bring about social and political change through non-violent means.ConclusionThe examination of three important world-leaders who based their activism in non-violent philosophy reveals certain universal traits among the different incarnations of non-violent a ctivism. Among these universal traits is a belief in the breaking of â€Å"unjust† laws for the purpose of bringing about social and political change. This belief is often, if not always, accompanied by an ambiguous but firmly articulated that such a braking of laws is based in Divine Will. Another core belief seems to be that non-violence rather than violence is, in fact, more in keeping with humanity's organic nature. This idea often results in a corresponding belief that the violence evident in human society is the result of a kind of perversion of humanity's natural attributes into an unnatural and unhealthy state.Against this backdrop, it is very difficult if not impossible to envision the philosophies of non-violent activism as we know them today as anything short of a religious and spiritual philosophy with extremely pragmatic roots in social and political activism. Not only is the spiritual aspect of non-violent philosophy seemingly universal in the three historical f igures studied in this short discussion, but the attributes of spirituality embraced by non-violent activists are, in themselves, of great and abiding interest to any observer. A discussion of this aspect alone would probably reveal that the philosophy of non-violence has existed as a spiritual conviction at various times in various cultures throughout the entire history of humanity.Works CitedBarker, Martin and Julian Petley, eds. 2001. Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. New York:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Routledge.Bok, Sissela. 1999. Mayhem Violence as Public Entertainment. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Schocken Books, 1961.Gandhi, Mahatma, and Thomas Merton. Gandhi on Non-Violence. New York: New Directions   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pub, 1965.Kent, Bruce. â€Å"Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea.† History Today Feb. 2007: 62+.Mandela, Tambo, and the African National Congress The Struggle against Apartheid, 1948-  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   1990. Ed. Sheridan Johns and R. Hunt Davis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Martin, Brian. â€Å"Nonviolent Futures.† Futures 33.7 (2001): 625.Pierce, Victoria. â€Å"A Tribute to Dr. King Civil Rights Leader's Legacy of Non- Violence Is Alive   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   around the World.† Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL) 29 Sept. 2006: 1.Wolf, Charles, and Brian Rosen. â€Å"Public Diplomacy: Lessons from King and Mandela.† Policy Review (2005): 63+. Non-Violence With the simultaneous proliferation of technology and global-poltical danger in the modern world, strategies for countering both political oppression, and the outbreak of political violence and war are urgently needed.   Although the century which has recently slipped away — the Twentieth Century — may be remembered as â€Å"the bloodiest in history† (Martin 625), with hundreds of millions of people killed in wars and with weapons of mass destruction being â€Å"invented, built, deployed and further refined† (Martin 625) during the same century when state-sponsored genocide and terrorism became commonly known quantities.Against this backdrop of chaos, war, and an increasingly dangerous technological landscape, the philosophy of non-violence, or passive resistance, gained   an historical currency which is still unmatched. The activities of important leaders like Gandhi, King, and Mandela revealed the truly earth-changing, paradigm shifting   potential of non-violence resistance as a method for seizing social initiative and political power. Because of the actions of these three important leaders. plus a host of other lesser-known figures, and the action of millions of ordinary activists, â€Å"it can be argued that the rise of nonviolent action was one of the most important developments of the century†Ã‚   (Martin 625), and one which has tremendous potential for application in today's difficult and complex political world.While it is true enough that Gandhi, King, and Mandela over similar models of non-violent leadership and that key tenants of what might be termed a â€Å"universal† sense of non-violence pervade each leaders' philosophies, distinct differences are also recognizable   when a comparison of the three leaders' ideas, activities, and accomplishments is carried out. Such a study of similarities and differences in the philosophies and actions of these important leaders is crucial to understanding how th e philosophy of non-violence may be applied in modern times as an antidote to the dangerous and oppressive climate that threatens much of the world. As noted, â€Å"Nonviolent action — including methods such as rallies, strikes, boycotts and sit-ins — has become increasingly important in the past century as a method for waging conflict and promoting social change† (Martin 625) and due to the urgent pressure caused by modern political and social challenges such as terrorism, global warming, the protection of human rights and religious freedom, adapting past approaches of non-violent action to present-day challenges may be beneficial.Non-violent activism may, in fact, help bring about important social changes: â€Å"Some areas for future expansion of the role of nonviolent action include replacing military defence, technological design, challenging capitalism, bureaucratic politics, information struggles and interpersonal behaviour† (Martin 625); the sugges tion of non-violence as an all-pervading philosophy applicable throughout the full strata of political and social issues may sound grandiose, but as we will see, this idea is actually a core-concept for the three leaders in our study.In this regard, non-violent philosophy takes it roots not in social, political or philosophical idea, but in spiritual convictions or even, spiritual revelation. An abstraction of  Ã‚   â€Å"nonviolence principles, building on the core dynamic of political jiu-jitsu in contexts where the opponent does not use physical force† (Martin 625) may be the best way to intuitively understand that non-violence does not indicate non-action of total passivity in the face of aggression. Such a distinction is difficult to pin down, but it is a crucial part of activism, manifest in the breaking of â€Å"unjust† laws, and passive resistant behaviors which, if not violent, certainly imply action by the participants.In order to shed light on some of the more challenging aspects of non-violent activism, such as the spiritual aspect, as well as investigate the potential application of non-violent philosophy in modern times, the following brief examination of non-violent philosophy according to each leader: Gandhi, King, and Mandela, will attempt to sketch a general idea of the similarities and differences of each leader's approach and attempt to discover if any type of universal vision of non-violent philosophy can be discovered.For Gandhi, non-violence arises out of an organic human impulse or † basic law of our being† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); such a conviction, foe Gandhi, is based not in genetic or biological assumptions or evidence or in logistical philosophical reasoning, but in spiritual ideas. For Gandhi, â€Å"Ahimsa (non-violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23) is the opposite of   â€Å"himsa (violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23), and the attributes of each energy are just as distinct. While Ahim sa â€Å"can be used as the most effective principle for social action, since it is in deep accord with the truth of man's nature and corresponds to his innate desire for peace, justice, order, freedom, and personal dignity† (Gandhi, and Merton 23), its opposite energy, himsa, â€Å"degrades and corrupts man† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); therefore to bring himsa energy against himsa energy would be to fight fire with fire.By contrast, the application of ahimsa or non-violent energy to the problem of himsa energy â€Å"heals and restores man's nature, while giving him a means to restore social order and justice† (Gandhi, and Merton 23). The important thing to remember here is that, for Gandhi, ahimsa and himsa energies are not metaphorical reflections or abstract concepts, they are living, spiritual realities.   Although the capacity for ahimsa resides in each person, modern society has left humanity with a much more desperate and disordered reliance on himsa energ y. For Gandhi such an alienation of man's true capacities has resulted in a culture where â€Å"violence seems to be the very foundation of social order and is â€Å"enthroned as if it were an eternal law,† so that man is called upon by society to reject love† (Gandhi, and Merton 43) and instead embrace a social reality which is enforced by violence or by the threat of violence.To meet this himsa-driven society with ahimsa energy adn non-violence requires supreme courage on behalf of the activist. This extraordinary courage, according to Gandhi, is derived from God:This courage demands nothing short of the ability to face death with complete fearlessness and to suffer without retaliation. Such a program is meaningless and impossible, Gandhi thinks, without belief in God.The implication in Gandhi's ideas is that the activist or the â€Å"Satyagrahi† is enabled, in fact: bound, by God to break the laws of man when they are unjust. The decision as to how it is dete rmined that a law is unjust is murky and unclear, as we will see: this same ambiguity marks both King and Mandela's own approach to non-violent activism. The historical truth is that Gandhi made clear that each â€Å"Satyagrahi was bound to resist all those laws which he considered to be unjust and which were not of a criminal character, in order to bend the Government to the will of the people† (Gandhi 21) and it is this kind of â€Å"twisting† which comprises the active aspect of non-violent activism.The expression of non-violent activism by King relied as much on spiritual conviction as that of Gandhi. This conviction brought about a similar adherence to   the concept of breaking â€Å"unjust† laws as a method of civil disobedience. King, like Gandhi, found justification for the breaking of social laws by the invocation of Divine Power. The result was that King experienced some difficulty in making his racial and social activism truly universal, although su ch a desire to do so formed an underlying precept of his overall strategy for social and political change. In a rather unique twist of philosophy, King opted to not only resist unjust laws non-violently, but tor each out to his so-called opponents: white racists with language of reconciliation, good-will, and fellowship. King's invocations of â€Å"the good to be achieved† (Wolf, and Rosen) were powerful   counterparts to his criticisms of the social conditions he sought to transform.Since King's goal was to â€Å"to bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible† (Wolf, and Rosen) his reliance on civil disobedience and the breaking of unjust laws by Divine justification, like Gandhi's, requires a deeper examination. Such revelation is possible due to King's extensive writings; in particular his â€Å"Letter From a Birmingham Jail† a famous document where he addresses the concern of his fellow clergymen regarding the breaking of la ws by civil activists. The letter repeatedly appeals to a shared sense of religion; King also cites Biblical examples to bolster his argument.  Ã‚   Responding to the criticism that his actions and the actions of his followers, even though non-violent in practice, ultimately resulted in violence on the behalf of the white Southerners who beat and jailed the protestor (and sometimes lynched or otherwise killed African Americans), King compared the fight for civil rights with the fight of Jesus to spread the gospel.King's appeal via religion and spirituality was based in a desire for unity and understanding. While he denied accusations of extremity or of inciting violence, he admitted that the impulse for civil rights was, by his reckoning, the will   of God.   Ã‚   King advises that the will of all people is toward freedom and equality.   â€Å"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happene d to the American Negro.† (King) By forwarding the notion that civil rights are an inevitable outgrowth of both God's will and the flow of history, King is, in effect, offering a justification for his tactics and philosophies regarding civil rights.The justification for the elements of passive resistance which had led to violent confrontation is also based in King's ideas of justice. King's idea is that God's law is the highest law and that man's laws may be broken when they obviously disagree with or even insult God's law.With the belief that God's Law is the highest law and that history shows that all people will struggle for freedom and liberty, and by appealing to the rational sense of justice and the emotional and spiritual senses of brotherhood and love, King attains justification for his actions but does not seek to evade or subvert laws outright.Unlike King, Mandela called for deliberate confrontation with the forces of apartheid which apposed his view of liberation an d freedom. Although he repeatedly expressed his opinion that he was not, in fact, a racist himself, Mandela's rhetoric unlike King and Gandhi's, â€Å"was more polarizing† (Wolf, and Rosen); for example, Mandela never attempted â€Å"to appeal to whites† and he sought by confrontational rhetoric coupled with non-violent activism to † through greater polarization to galvanize the situation to crisis levels, thereby compelling action by the international community† (Wolf, and Rosen) which in itself presents a divergence in thought from Gandhi and King both of whom sough reconciliation with their enemies.However, rhetoric was simply another tool in Mandela's non-violent philosophical approach. When, at key moments, he might have called for violence, in actuality, he strove for non-violent change. he might have â€Å"easily have called for a violent overthrow of the South African government upon his release after 27 years in prison† (Pierce 1) but rather than do so, he advocated non-violent resistance. The idea of appealing to the world community adds another dimension to the non-violent approach of activism. For Mandela, â€Å"In this scenario, â€Å"the international community† becomes subrogated to the role of â€Å"broader constituency† that Mandela evoked indirectly†Ã‚   (Wolf, and Rosen) but whose support and intervention proved crucial to his success. Because of his sometimes volatile rhetoric, Mandela took special care to â€Å"emphasize his desire for reconciliation across the divide of colour† and repeatedly â€Å"pledged himself anew to work for a multiracial society in which all would have a secure place† (Pierce 175).Contemporary Impact of Non-Violent StrategiesDespite the contributions of great thinkers and activists like those examined in the preceding, brief discussion, the fact is contemporary society seems no less preoccupied with violence than ever before. By examining the media one has the distinct impression that in the world of media and media-related technology, a great deal of concern has been expressed by both everyday observers and specialists in social-psychology over the possible negative impacts that media, and in particular media portrayals of violence, may have upon small children and adolescent children. One of the most complex facets of the issue is the still-unknown impact that new technologies such as 24 hour a day cable programming, widespread Internet access, and the â€Å"digital age† in general will have on the generation of young people who are presently the first to be so overwhelmed by such widespread media and media technologies.An immersive and nearly all-pervading sense of media exists in modern homes that, in fact, the presence of media can be said to form a basis of â€Å"reality† for many people. It is this exact kind of blurred distinction between perceived reality (based on media models and information) and real ity (those aspects of life which stand apart from media and media-based models).   The distinction between media-reality and reality is not always clear, particularly to small children and adolescent children: â€Å"The boundaries between reality and unreality are especially permeable for small children. They are unable, through at least the age of three or four, to distinguish fact from fantasy. Even older children rarely manage to keep â€Å"real life† and vicarious experience in watertight compartments† (Bok 1999, 38) as we will see in the following discussion.The main impact repeated viewings of media violence seems to exert over small children and adolescents is the conflation of media-violence with organic psychological processes, many of which exist at such a deep, primitive psychological level in humans that manipulation of these emotions, and psychological dispositions remains, for the most part, beyond the conscious perception of the viewer. In conclusion, although the idea of media-responsibility regarding the impact of violent programming on children and young adults is often cited by critics as a form of censorship, ample scientific evidence and research exists to establish media-violence as a certain source of negative influence on young people.The fact of the matter remains despite the right of free speech that media-reality and actual reality are non-distinct at some deep, organic level in human psychology: † weeks earlier the Los Angeles police officers whose roadside beating of motorist Rodney King had been shown on TV screens the world over had been acquitted by an all-white jury[†¦]In that crisis, the boundaries between movies and reality blurred, not only for the public but also for Hollywood producers, directors, and actors who were seeing smoke rising beneath their hillside residences and hearing sirens echo up and down the canyons,† (Bok 1999, 36); with such a confusing and agitating impact of adult prof essionals, what can we expect when we expose our children to the same cultural ambiguities through media?If non-violent philosophy according to Gandhi, king, and Mandela is correct then violence is not   a norm in human society, but a constructed evil. If, as the proponents of non-violent philosophy suggest, â€Å"non-violent settlement of conflict is the human norm as we well know from daily experience. We are not programmed in some genetic way to violence† (Kent) than a radical re-visioning of our self-identity and self-image as human beings must take place not only in our media and in our educational facilities, but in our individual psyches as well.The applications of non-violent strategies in contemporary culture can be thought of as being as unknown as the implications of deep-space travel because even though the contributions of such historical leaders as Gandhi, King, and Mandela reveals the tremendous power of non-violent activism, the full impact of the philosophy as articulated by these men has far-reaching cultural, global-poltical, and spiritual implications which surpass anything which has yet occurred in history.   In other words, the â€Å"pioneers† of the â€Å"modern† incarnation of non-violent strategy which we have examined: Gandhi, King, and Mandela represent not the totality of what the non-violent philosophy can or wants to attain, but the mere beginning of a global transformation which is rooted not inly in the basic moral nature of humanity, but in humanity's spiritual destiny and responsibility.Certainly individual leaders and activists continue to utilize the non-violent approach to attain important results in their areas of influence. Modern technology can also help individual activists to promote change by spreading honest information regarding the repercussions of violence and the militarization of political issues. One recent example is when â€Å"a 1991 massacre in the East Timorese capital Dill was rec orded on videotape and subsequently broadcast worldwide, this generated enormous support for the resistance† (Martin 625); such applications of technology by individuals represent one small but important aspect of the many avenues of potential non-violent methods of change.Other methods include educational strategies based in the ideas forwarded by Gandhi, King, and Mandela. The recognition of the historical impact of the immensely influential strategies of non-violent change and civil disobedience will also help to inform and empower individuals who, in turn, may adopt some of the strategies and ideas reflected upon in the above discussion to help bring about social and political change through non-violent means.ConclusionThe examination of three important world-leaders who based their activism in non-violent philosophy reveals certain universal traits among the different incarnations of non-violent activism. Among these universal traits is a belief in the breaking of â€Å" unjust† laws for the purpose of bringing about social and political change. This belief is often, if not always, accompanied by an ambiguous but firmly articulated that such a braking of laws is based in Divine Will. Another core belief seems to be that non-violence rather than violence is, in fact, more in keeping with humanity's organic nature. This idea often results in a corresponding belief that the violence evident in human society is the result of a kind of perversion of humanity's natural attributes into an unnatural and unhealthy state.Against this backdrop, it is very difficult if not impossible to envision the philosophies of non-violent activism as we know them today as anything short of a religious and spiritual philosophy with extremely pragmatic roots in social and political activism. Not only is the spiritual aspect of non-violent philosophy seemingly universal in the three historical figures studied in this short discussion, but the attributes of spirituality embraced by non-violent activists are, in themselves, of great and abiding interest to any observer. A discussion of this aspect alone would probably reveal that the philosophy of non-violence has existed as a spiritual conviction at various times in various cultures throughout the entire history of humanity.Works CitedBarker, Martin and Julian Petley, eds. 2001. Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. New York:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Routledge.Bok, Sissela. 1999. Mayhem Violence as Public Entertainment. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Schocken Books, 1961.Gandhi, Mahatma, and Thomas Merton. Gandhi on Non-Violence. New York: New Directions   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pub, 1965.Kent, Bruce. â€Å"Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea.† History Today Feb. 2007: 62+.Mandela, Tambo, and the African National Congress The Struggle against Apartheid, 1948-   1990. Ed. Sheridan Johns and R. Hunt Davis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Martin, Brian. â€Å"Nonviolent Futures.† Futures 33.7 (2001): 625.Pierce, Victoria. â€Å"A Tribute to Dr. King Civil Rights Leader's Legacy of Non- Violence Is Alive   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   around the World.† Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL) 29 Sept. 2006: 1.Wolf, Charles, and Brian Rosen. â€Å"Public Diplomacy: Lessons from King and Mandela.† Policy   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Review (2005): 63+.

Breastfeeding and the Workplace

Breastfeeding and the Workplace Breastfeeding and the WorkplaceCompanies, as well as their employees, benefit from establishing and supporting breastfeeding programs within the workplace.With the average maternity leave averaging six weeks, many breastfeeding moth-ers struggle with their decision to continue breastfeeding their infant upon returning to work. "Despite a few exceptions, most US employers give no support to breastfeeding mothers, contributing to the decision of many new moms to quit nursing once back on the job" (Tyson, 1998). Workplace breastfeeding support can ease a new mother's transition back to work. "There are various forms of practical support employers can offer women to help them continue breastfeeding after they return to work" (Personnel Today, 2003).There are several benefits that the employer can reap by supporting workplace lactation programs. "Workplace lactation programs reduce health care costs and em-ployee absenteeism caused by infant illness because breast-fed infants are healthie r, ac-cording to AAP". "Its research has shown that these babies have fewer allergies, respira-tory infections, ear infections, and serious diseases, such as diabetes".English: Breastfeeding an infant Portuguà ªs: Um re..."Breastfeeding also keeps mothers healthier by reducing the risk of ovarian and breast cancers, say the AAP" (Tyler,1999). Studies show there is less illness among breastfed children and therefore lower health insurance costs. A healthier child in turn means less employee absenteeism. It can also be a boost to employee morale. Diane Cushman, a manager at a property-casualty company in St. Paul, Minnesota, states, "It's a great morale builder, even for people who aren't using it". "It's a low-cost, high impact program". "And it's not difficult to implement" (Tyler, 1999).A lactation program, along with the more common health care, 401k, and pension benefits, can also be a good incentive to attract new employees. Many companies who frequently make the "Top 100" list s provide breastfeeding support programs. "Providing lactation rooms is a good...

Edward scissors hands Narrative Essays

Edward scissors hands Narrative Essays Edward scissors hands Narrative Essay Edward scissors hands Narrative Essay Narrative is the most important part of a film. It helps to structure the film to give an understanding of plot and helps the film progress. There are several elements of creating a narrative such as character motivations and how time and space is structured. The 15 minuet chosen is at the beginning of the film just after the credits.  The most important thing about the start of a film is that it can establish a narrative quickly so the audience doesnt get bored. The first two minuets of the film (after the credits) begin with a point of view shot of the mansion followed by a pan out which introduces the first character, As this character walks around the room the camera follows instantly introducing a second character. As a conversation begins between the two characters a 180 degrees line is created which moves depending on which character is talking. The dialogue of this first sequence sets up a story and gives the old lady the chance to introduce the main character Edward although we dont see him yet. As the camera pans back towards the window a voice over continues giving further insight to the story, The camera travels through the window and gives us an instant establishing shot (suburbia) followed by a secondary establishing shot of the mansion. After a fading transition the camera is on the inside of the mansion looking down on the houses in the same way that the old woman was looking up at the house. This whole two-minuet sequence is strangely similar to the one seen in Citizen Cane when we see Canes mansion in the way the sequence is shot and the content (The mansion, An outcast within the mansion, The use of snow). After a small pan outward we get a slight glimmer of a pale figure looking down at the streets then there is a cut taking us to a new scene. These two minuets have established a place where the film is based around and has given an insight into the plot a head. For the plot to progress it is essential that characters are introduced to the audience. We are introduced to all of the main characters one at a time in the first 15 minuets. At the beginning of the film we see the characters of the old woman and the child although we dont now who they are yet and after the first scenes the first character introduced is Peg A door to door seller of makeup. We are also introduced to many of the minor characters (The Neighbours) in the first 15 minuets as Peg visits their houses. After Peg has her first meeting with Edward (Who is the next main character to be introduced) she is instantly motivated to bring Edward to her suburban home despite being so disfigured and different. This seems like the last thing someone from Suburbia would want to do and oddly the whole of the street are welcoming to Edward. Edward is represented in many ways by what we see. The mansion that stand over the houses is a dark dilapidated building that the people living in the houses below dont seem to take any notice of in the same way that these people dont except who Edward is on the out side (A disfigured man who looks like a dangerous freak) which is an odd thing for people living in such a formal area to do but in time these people will start to see who he is on the outside but will let there judgement of what he looks like cloud there judgement of who he may be on the inside (A innocent child like person with feelings). The motivations of Edward are made clear in the first 15 minuets of the film. When Edward is shown a picture of Kim (Pegs daughter) the use of panning and Non diagetic music really show the fact that Edward is transfixed with her, There is then a cut to show the expression on Edwards face which isnt much but with the music we can see what Edwards goal will be (It is not obvious yet) even though Edward may not know it yet himself. We are also introduced to an obvious obstacle seen in the picture (Kims boy friend) and again although not even the audience can understand the man in the picture is going to become a problem it is there to set Edward A goal and what he has to over come to reach this goal. Also the first 15 minuets are giving us a setting and characters, at the same time we are slowly being set up for a conflict. The characters create the fairy tail feel with Edward being the hero, Peg being the queen or just the mother, Pegs husband being the King or just the father, Kim will become the princess and carols boyfriend will be the Evil duke/ Bad guy. If this wasnt seen as a fairy tail then there are obvious elements of a grim folk tail and Levi Straus theories within the plot.