Arthur Conan Doyle Essay Example for Free

Arthur Conan Doyle Essay The stories of Sherlock Holmes are typical of the detective genre and the characters remain popular; they are also useful social, historical documents. Explain why you think this is so, referring to 3 of the stories you have read. Sherlock Holmes is a fictional detective of the late 19 and early 20 centuries, who first appeared in newspaper in 1887. Hes created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes is famous for his intelligent study to solve difficult crime cases. He is one of the best known and most generally recognizable characters in detective genre. Conan Doyle wrote 56 short stories that featured Holmes, that are narrated by Holmes friend and biographer, Dr John Watson. Most of the stories first appeared in the magazine called Strand. The three stories that I read are The Red-headed League, The Speckle band and The final Problem. A brief outline of the first story, The Red-headed League Is about VS planning to rob the bank and Its not long when holmes and JW investigate and catch VS in the act. The Speckled Band is about a stepfather, Dr Roylott, who wants to have his step daughters inheritance. He finds out she is going to wed, but if she does, this mean he will get less money. He therefore decides to kill her and does this with a speckled band, a breed of snake. In The Final Problem, we meet Professor Moriarty who is Holmes old enemy, he is a criminal genius. Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson and P. Moriarty travel to Switzerland, and there Holmes gets pushed off a cliff and dies. The crime always takes place in a rich and middle class areas. They often use strange and curious settings in the crime places, strange objects at that time used to excite people. All the stories open in the same way, with Dr Watson telling us the story from the beginning. We only get to Dr Watsons view, because its Watsons voice that narrates the stories. The two main characters are Dr Watson and Sherlock Holmes. Dr Watson is inspired by Holmes. Watson tries to solve the crime in the Red-Headed league, He Trys to figure out Jabez Wilsons personality. In The Empty house he had to solve the crime because Holmes wasnt there because he had died in the previous story. In the majority of the stories he is portrayed as a person who shows a great passion for crime along with Holmes. Holmes Watson work together as a good team because Watson is inspired by what Holmes does, thats why Watson always describes Holmes as a very nice an intelligent person, and Holmes likes Watson because he writes everything down. Although, intellectually he can not compete and always seems to become second best; Holmes, I cried, I seem to see dimly what you are hinting At. We are only just in time to prevent some subtle and horrible Crime. (The adventure of the speckled band) The two also differ in other ways for example, although Holmes is intellectually gifted he lacks the contacts of friends, this shows him as a loner.

The Marginalization of Minority Groups in The Electoral System Essay

The marginalization of minority groups in the electoral system impedes a comprehensive representation by further entrenching and aggravating ethnic division. The lack of minority representation in political-decision making has limited the ability of a true representative democracy to come into fruition. The inconsistency of elected assemblies mirroring the population has decreased the representation of ethnic minorities and deepened the racial and ethnic cleavages. Reforming the electoral system to accommodate proportional representation will not only enhance interethnic relations, but also ensure that racial, ethnic, and social diversity is reflected in national leadership. This paper will aim to create to create a strong electoral system that promotes the sustainability and longevity of democracy amidst racial and ethnic cleavages. To do so, I will show that proportional representation under parliamentary system can not only bridge the gap between underrepresented minorities and na tional leadership, but also ensure that there is a more equitable diffusion of power. I will focus on outlining the essential components of proportional representation to provide the framework for my argument. Assessing the tenets of this type of democracy will elucidate its distinguishable factor that makes it apt to curb this challenge. In addition, the assertions of Linz, Cheibub, and Lijphart will substantiate my argument that a parliamentary system, unlike a presidential system, can allow greater proportional representation of all minorities. To ensure a more balance and equitable representation of the candidate pool, I will argue the necessity of employing a Single Transferable vote. While many may see the flexibility and lack of stability in par... ...stem must be constructed that not only strengthens civil society, but also ensures its equal representation. Under this mode of governance, not only will there me a more equitable representation of all minorities, but also the ideals of democracy and constitutional liberalism can be sustained. As stated by Fidel Ramos, â€Å"Governments may come and go, but the people remain. It is the majesty of people power that we exalt when we build functioning and free electoral systems.† It is of utmost importance for the electoral system to be not only, the voice of the people, but also be an outlet from which the interests and pleas of society can be expressed and manifested into legislation. While proportional representation does have it flaws, its ability to truly represent the choices of the electorate will create an egalitarian representation and a successful democracy.

Against Same Sex Marriage Essay

The legalization of the marriage between same sex couples will permanently change the rite of marriage in our society. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family. Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbol related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society works out the relationship of two people who will together create and nurture a new generation. To change the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage couples would destroy its capacity to function in many ways. It could no longer represent procreative relationships of opposite sex marriages.Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which the future of life depends. It is the primary reason why marriage is so important to society. In same sex marriages procreation would be eliminated entirely. First, when the state sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from spiritual prospective, the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is reduced to a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience. Cohabitation and short term relationships are the inevitable result. Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead to polygamy and other alternatives to the one man, on woman unions. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once the line has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology, and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals it will be supported by nothing more substantiated than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices (Marriage under Fire). After their decision, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of rights. Given that unstable legal judgment, it is certain some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. How about group marriage or marriage between cousins, or marriage between parent and child? How about marriage between a man and his animal? Anything allegedly linked to civil rights will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. These other couples restricted from marrying are not equivalent to homosexual couples, but are necessary to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of its costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. A marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage, couples unlikely to produce children. One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce (Single Parent: What Helps, What Hurts). However, there is ample evidence that children need both female and male parent for proper development. It is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes (Life without Father). With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this lifestyle is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a woman and a man. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships and stories written for children as young as elementary or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals. Every public school will also be forced to teach that same sex marriage and homosexuality are perfectly normal. They will teach little boys  and little girls that husband and wife and father and moother are merely optional for a family and therfore, meaningless (No Gay Marriage). Same sex families deny children either a mother or father. In certain cases, the same sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults. Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every measure of well-being. These children suffer from higher levels of loneliness, physical or mental illness, behavior problems, educa tional failure or criminal troubles. The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. Homosexual activists, with their inner power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. Gay marriages are likely to do for gay rights what the rallying cry of â€Å"abortion on demand† did for the Equal Rights Amendment and the women’s movement. It diverts the real debate on every level. It reduces the cause of gay rights to a single issue. But the real deal is most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. They do not want to entangle themselves in all sorts of legal constraints (Single Parent What Helps, What Hurts). In a perfect democratic world, gay marriage would be an option for those who want it. However, this world is not a perfect democracy, and the fight for gay marriage is the wrong fight at the wrong time (Focus on Family). In conclusion, the reason for excluding same sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying homosexual marriage is that we have no respect for same sex couples and their relationships and want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then that is discrimination and that is wrong. On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and the essence is to protect the procreative relationship, then excluding same sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable. This such refusal is not discrimination. Ethics requires us to take the least invasive, least restrictive alternative, reasonably available and likely to be effective in achieving a justified  goal. Maintaining a traditional marriage and legally recognizing same sex partnerships fulfills that ethical requirement (Why Marriage Matters). Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. What will happen to society if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the state will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments associated with it. These are a few reasons why I am against homosexual marriage. Legalizing it will change everything, especially the institution of the family. Every society needs natural marriage- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her- working together to create and raise the next generation.

Global Warming And The Paris Agreement - 1924 Words

Introduction After two decades of deliberations (Obergassel et al. 2016: 3), the international community has finally created an accord in which every state will play a role in trying to accomplish the major environmental goal of our time, preventing dangerous levels of global warming. On December 12, 2015, at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 195 nations decided to adopt the Paris Agreement (Obergassel et al. 2016: 7). Upon being signed, the Paris Agreement has been widely hailed as a historic diplomatic success (Harvey, Fiona 2015). It aims to prevent the climate from warming to dangerous levels, with dangerous being quantified as the specific goal of â€Å"holding the increase in†¦show more content†¦Second, I will examine how the Paris Agreement’s method of letting each country choose its own emissions limitation targets has resulted in a trajectory where even the already too dangerous 2  ºC threshold is currentl y far out of reach (Clà ©menà §on 2016: 13). And finally, I will demonstrate how even if individual countries ultimately revise and improve their targets so that they would be able to meet the 2  ºC threshold, the non-binding nature of the Paris Agreement will likely result in some countries choosing not to take the efforts necessary to attain their targets (Obergassel et al. 2016: 44). When combined with the fact that the world is already seeing dangerous effects from climate change (Knutti et al. 2015: 5), these points suggest that the goal of preventing dangerous levels of climate change from occurring are unobtainable. Defining â€Å"Dangerous† Since 2009’s COP15 in Copenhagen, the international community has come to a consensus that global warming at or higher than 2  ºC above the pre-industrial average is too dangerous (Lau, Lee and Mohamed 2012: 3). This arbitrary temperature increase threshold is not based on scientific consensus of what is safe, but rather a political consensus based on what was believed to be â€Å"both realistically achievable and tolerable† (Knutti et al. 2015: 1). Although limiting the global temperature increase to 2  ºC above the pre-industrial average is certainly safer than not limiting it at all (Clà ©menà §on 2016: 18), even a 2  ºC increase