Marc Antonys Speech In Caesar Essays - Julius Caesar,

Marc Antony's Speech In Caesar In just a few words, a complete portrait of a character can be formed. As in all Shakespearean drama, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is masterful in its technique of characterization and eloquence. In Marc Antony's famous speech to the plebeians after Caesar's death, he repeatedly states that ?Brutus is an honorable man? (3.2.89). The quote, which can be taken both on a literal and nonliteral level, reveals much about the character of Brutus. Not only does Antony's quote point, obviously, to the fact that Brutus is seen as an honorable man, but in its tone and application, it also raises questions as to whether this honor is duly placed. Marcus Brutus is seen by all of Rome, including himself, as an upstanding man of the state. He has learned to take pride in his reputation and is eager to use his distinguished status to every possible advantage. After Caesar's assasination, Brutus gains the attention of the people by asking them to ?Believe [him] for [his] honor and have respect to [his] honor that [they] may believe? (3.2.14-16). He knows that he is seen as possessing nobility and uses this image to sway the minds of the commoners. Since he is honorable, after all, then all of his decisions must also be both honorable and true. Antony, however, sees the self-important side of Brutus that has developed. He notices Brutus' unassuming hubris and uses it against him. Through repeatedly stating the idea that ?Brutus is an honorable man? in his speech, and then pointing out the fact that Brutus is claiming to be so ?honorable? because he murdered Caesar, Antony quickly dissuades the people from Brutus' line of thought to his own. Although it is apparent that Brutus is perceived as a respectable member of the Roman community, this respect by the people is not strong enough to hold when Brutus takes his supposed moral obligations too far and murders his friend. Brutus' reputation, although sound, is not sound enough to cover such blatantly faulty motives: motives that serve his own conceited conscience rather than serving the concerns and fears of the citizens of Rome. Antony may have also noticed (and be using the knowledge in his speech) that Cassius' flattery, as well as the flattery of the other conspirators, has finally made its mark on Brutus. From the beginning of act one, Cassius attempts to lure Brutus into the Caesar assassination plot through flattery. ?Why should [Caesar's] name be sounded more than yours Cassius asks Brutus (1.2.143). ?Weigh them,? Cassius says, ?Brutus?, ?is as heavy; conjure with ?em, ?Brutus' will start a spirit as soon as ?Caesar'? (1.2.146-147). For a man of such nobility, it is strange that Brutus reacts so considerably to the praise that Cassius so easily offers. Brutus never questions Cassius' reasons for the murder conspiracy. He sees them as true. The only predicament he has in killing Caesar lies solely in the idea that Caesar is his friend--not that Caesar does not possess the characteristics of ambition that Cassius convinces Brutus are viable reasons for conspiracy. Since Brutus' image of himself has gain ed in intensity through the flattery of others, he comes to the point that he sees no wrong in his actions because they do come from such an upstanding member of Rome--himself. Brutus allows his self-assuredness to balloon into conceit, and, no doubt, sets himself to be trapped by Antony's speech to the plebeians. Brutus believes that all men who respect his dignity must share the same values as himself. He loves Caesar, but since Caesar does not share the same ideals for Rome that Brutus does, Brutus finds sufficient reason to slay him. Antony states that ?all the conspirators save only [Brutus] did what they did in envy of great Caesar? (5.5.69-70). Brutus in no way envies Caesar. He is merely afraid of Caesar's growing power and how Caesar may attempt a dictatorship in Brutus? beloved Rome. However, since Cassius appears to uphold the same standards as himself, Brutus states ?that [Cassius] does love [him], [he] is nothing jealous? (1.2.163). Since he is allegedly so ?honorable,? Brutus believes that only those with values in line with his are worth his complete

Free Essays on Gender Stereotypes

â€Å"Despite gradual improvement over the last 25 years, the depiction of women on TV remains traditional and stereotyped†.# (Barner, 1) Many television programs have stereotyped men and women to behave in certain ways. What kind of job does a typical woman have? According to recent television programming, the typical woman is a teacher, nurse, secretary, or home maker. How realistic is this portrayal of women to the world? The typical woman is skinny, and very beautiful according to television programs, however all that you have to do is look around to see that not all women are â€Å"television beautiful†. Each woman is beautiful in her own way, however when they are objectified on television programs it creates a false sense of reality for those of us who do not look like Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera, and thus makes us think that if we are not skinny with long blonde hair that we are not beautiful. Television programs rarely portray women as doctors, la wyers, or business executives and when they are given these jobs, most of the women are to portray a neurotic version of a woman. Ally McBeal for example was a lawyer, but she was viewed by most people as a neurotic woman who was only good for a few laughs, and the only person who understood her was also very neurotic. Even the educational programming industry has become a part of this deception. Many of today’s children’s TV shows represent women as the mom who stays at home, or the nurse, or teacher: for example Dexter‘s Laboratory and The Rugrats. This makes young girls think that if they happen to want to be a scientist, it probably won’t happen because only men become scientists according to what we see on TV. Another issue that TV creates is young people starving themselves in a quest to achieve the â€Å"perfect body†. Not many people realize that nearly all actresses that are seen on TV have been altered or â€Å"touched up† by means of airbrushing or p... Free Essays on Gender Stereotypes Free Essays on Gender Stereotypes â€Å"Despite gradual improvement over the last 25 years, the depiction of women on TV remains traditional and stereotyped†.# (Barner, 1) Many television programs have stereotyped men and women to behave in certain ways. What kind of job does a typical woman have? According to recent television programming, the typical woman is a teacher, nurse, secretary, or home maker. How realistic is this portrayal of women to the world? The typical woman is skinny, and very beautiful according to television programs, however all that you have to do is look around to see that not all women are â€Å"television beautiful†. Each woman is beautiful in her own way, however when they are objectified on television programs it creates a false sense of reality for those of us who do not look like Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera, and thus makes us think that if we are not skinny with long blonde hair that we are not beautiful. Television programs rarely portray women as doctors, la wyers, or business executives and when they are given these jobs, most of the women are to portray a neurotic version of a woman. Ally McBeal for example was a lawyer, but she was viewed by most people as a neurotic woman who was only good for a few laughs, and the only person who understood her was also very neurotic. Even the educational programming industry has become a part of this deception. Many of today’s children’s TV shows represent women as the mom who stays at home, or the nurse, or teacher: for example Dexter‘s Laboratory and The Rugrats. This makes young girls think that if they happen to want to be a scientist, it probably won’t happen because only men become scientists according to what we see on TV. Another issue that TV creates is young people starving themselves in a quest to achieve the â€Å"perfect body†. Not many people realize that nearly all actresses that are seen on TV have been altered or â€Å"touched up† by means of airbrushing or p...

12 Angry Men

2. At the beginning of this movie the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to death for murder; yet by the end of the movie they vote to acquit him, to set him free. What are the events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free ? Describe the process. 1)The knife could be bought or have been found by anyone 2)The murderer knew how to use a pocket knife and the count have known. 3)When they re-enact the old man walking/limping from his bed to the door outside it takes them more then 15 seconds to get to the outside door. And the old man swore it had taken him 15 seconds. 4)The old man and the lady say that they heard the boy screaming at his father saying â€Å"I’ll kill you† but that doesn’t really mean he actually killed him since people say that phrase all the time but don’t really mean it and that was proved when juror number three has and outburst and say’s â€Å"I’ll kill you† to juror number eight. 5)How could the old man and the lady have heard the boy screaming when you can’t even hear yourself thinking over the el train. )The jurors start doubting the lady’s eyesight since she did not have her glasses on and maybe just assumed that it was the boy staying his father. 3. Why is juror number nine (old Man) a real hero ? Explain this using examples. 1)Because he is the first to agree with juror number eight , deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young boy to death. 2)He openly describes juror number ten’ s racist attitude. 3)When he agrees that the old man could have maybe justified to what he heard and saw the night of the murder so he’s name could be recognized. 4. Explain number three’s anger against the accused. He’s anger towards the accused is because he’s relationship whit his son was very similar to the accused and the defendant. So based on the fact that he hasn’t seen his son in the past two years and the negative relationship he’s had with him he decides to declare the accused guilty because he thinks that the boy dose not deserve to live because he killed his own father. 5. Explain the impact of the closing scene in the jury room between number eight and three. Juror number three breaks down after his outburst while every one is leaving juror number eight stays back and tries to console him without communication. . Explain the following (refers to the play). a) â€Å"Innocent until proven guilty† Until you have no strong evidence against the accused, the accused is declared guilty. b) â€Å"Reasonable doubt† Something that could possibly prove the accused guilty. c) â€Å"Burden of proof† The biggest/important proof to prove the accuse d guilty or not guilty. 7. Explain the title. The title explained how these twelve men are frustrated and stressed and have this burden of declaring the accused guilty or not guilty. 12 Angry Men After hours of deliberation, the jurors reached the decision that the boy is not guilty, due to the fact of reasonable doubt. While few jurors are motivated by their respect and determination for the justice system, Juror 10 is motivated by his personal prejudice. Juror 10 is clearly motivated by his prejudice. He uses his intolerance to determine his vote for the accused defendant. For instance, in the beginning of Act I, Juror 10 haphazardly said, â€Å" Look at the kind of people they are, you know them,† (13) without even digging deep into the case. It is quite obvious that Juror 10 is generating an â€Å"opinion† of the defendant based on the color of his skin and his background. He does not refer to them as regular people, but as â€Å"they† and â€Å"them† on certain pages. In the courtroom though, no juror is to have any judgments, they are supposed to bring the facts to the table, not their opinions. Juror 10’s outlook of the defendant is blinding him from thinking of any reasonable doubt. Further more, when Juror 10 said, â€Å"†¦I lived among em’ all my life, you can’t believe a word they say. You know that,† he yet again was referring to the defendant’s people as â€Å"em† and â€Å"they†. You can clearly infer that while Juror 10 was living amongst them, he must have experienced or witnessed situations which has caused him to have judgments on these specific people. These same judgments he brings to the courtroom just add difficulty into solving the case. Following Juror 10’s views further, when Juror 5 was explaining how the person who did stab the father was un-experienced, but the defendant was indeed experienced and Juror 3 stated he didn’t believe it, Juror 10 responded with, â€Å"Neither do I. You’re giving us a lot of mumbo-jumbo. † (56) His racist views of the one accused once again got in the way and made him think differently on what Juror 3 had said. Juror 10 didn’t even bother thinking the idea through! A reasonable person would have at least deliberated instead of just shutting down the thought completely. In addition to that thought, as the other jurors are realizing that there is reasonable doubt and changing their votes from guilty to not guilty, Juror 10’s temper begins to rise. His reaction to the other jurors for not agreeing with his opinion results to him throwing a rampage. He ends up screaming at the top of his lungs and thinking of everything he can possibly say to make the rest of the jurors side with him. But the only response he receives from the jurors is as they turn away from him in disgust. After Juror 10 gets his racist opinions across, he realizes he simply cannot win this fight. His judgmental views of the defendant blocked any potential thought Juror 10 would have had if he went in to the courtroom with an open mind. Juror 10 stands out to the reader for his extreme prejudice look at the defendant and his culture. With out giving the case a glance, he already created an unchangeable opinion. From his view, Juror 10 doesn’t think of â€Å"them† as regular people, but as these animals who get away with every crime they commit. Also his extremely prejudiced opinions made him resistant from â€Å"separating the facts from the fancy. † One of the largest issues in our justice system is when jurors already have generated an opinion on the defendant, where as Juror 10 clearly did, which then causes the final vote to be affected. All in all, if the members of the court went into the jury room with an open mind we would most likely have more proved innocent cases in today’s society. It has been at least 60 years since the drama â€Å"Twelve Angry Men† was written. And even today, do we really believe all men and women were created equal? 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men 2. At the beginning of this movie the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to death for murder; yet by the end of the movie they vote to acquit him, to set him free. What are the events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free ? Describe the process. 1)The knife could be bought or have been found by anyone 2)The murderer knew how to use a pocket knife and the count have known. 3)When they re-enact the old man walking/limping from his bed to the door outside it takes them more then 15 seconds to get to the outside door. And the old man swore it had taken him 15 seconds. 4)The old man and the lady say that they heard the boy screaming at his father saying â€Å"I’ll kill you† but that doesn’t really mean he actually killed him since people say that phrase all the time but don’t really mean it and that was proved when juror number three has and outburst and say’s â€Å"I’ll kill you† to juror number eight. 5)How could the old man and the lady have heard the boy screaming when you can’t even hear yourself thinking over the el train. )The jurors start doubting the lady’s eyesight since she did not have her glasses on and maybe just assumed that it was the boy staying his father. 3. Why is juror number nine (old Man) a real hero ? Explain this using examples. 1)Because he is the first to agree with juror number eight , deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young boy to death. 2)He openly describes juror number ten’ s racist attitude. 3)When he agrees that the old man could have maybe justified to what he heard and saw the night of the murder so he’s name could be recognized. 4. Explain number three’s anger against the accused. He’s anger towards the accused is because he’s relationship whit his son was very similar to the accused and the defendant. So based on the fact that he hasn’t seen his son in the past two years and the negative relationship he’s had with him he decides to declare the accused guilty because he thinks that the boy dose not deserve to live because he killed his own father. 5. Explain the impact of the closing scene in the jury room between number eight and three. Juror number three breaks down after his outburst while every one is leaving juror number eight stays back and tries to console him without communication. . Explain the following (refers to the play). a) â€Å"Innocent until proven guilty† Until you have no strong evidence against the accused, the accused is declared guilty. b) â€Å"Reasonable doubt† Something that could possibly prove the accused guilty. c) â€Å"Burden of proof† The biggest/important proof to prove the accuse d guilty or not guilty. 7. Explain the title. The title explained how these twelve men are frustrated and stressed and have this burden of declaring the accused guilty or not guilty. 12 angry men 12 Angry Men tells the story of twelve jurors thrust together in a hot and humid room on a New York summer evening to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old Hispanic boy with a troubled past.   He is accused of stabbing his father; a man with whom he has had a contentious relationship for years.   The accused is fighting an uphill battle towards an acquittal: the eye witness account of his neighbors, a court appointed public defender whose apathy towards this case is mirrored by more than one of the jurors and his race which seems to be a major strike against him in the mind of some of the jurors, specifically juror #10. From the onset, it seems like an open and shut case with the accused being sentenced to death for the murder of his father. But if that were the case, 12 Angry Men, with its study of human contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would have been long forgotten. Instead, 12 Angry Men is a testament to the notion that standing up for ones beliefs that have come from an unbiased and methodical overview of the facts, even if those beliefs are contrary to the vocal majority, is honorable and that such prejudices which cloud those facts are an impediment to every citizen in a democratic society. Being forced to listen to six days of testimony while at the same time being paid only three dollars a day for their services, it is easy to see how some or most of the jurors at the beginning of deliberations, seemed apathetic towards the great responsibility they have to give the accused their undivided attention while deciding his guilt or innocence. This is the case for a number of jurors; specifically juror #7 who is preoccupied with making the Yankee/Indians game later that day. He feels rushed by the proceedings and desires quick deliberations followed by a unanimous guilty vote. He feels that the accused is guilty but most likely would have voted the way of the majority if that meant that he could have gone to the game, gone home or just been anywhere other than in the courtroom for any additional length of time.   He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded about the awesome power he has to either put a man to death or to set him free. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused should be paramount in his mind but sadly, it is not. Juror #5 is not the only one who shrinks from his responsibility. Juror #12, the well dressed and jovial salesman feels that the accused is guilty but when pressed to explain his reasoning, cannot and quickly changes his mind when pressured to do so. Juror #12 is preoccupied with his job and maintaining a light atmosphere in the jury room; almost oblivious to the matter at hand.   Juror #2 is in many ways, the same as juror #12 except for the fact that his personality is not nearly as outgoing but in the same way, lacks convictions and is content to go with the crowd. He does not take his civic duty seriously and is afraid to stand up against the crowd unlike juror #8; the lone dissenter at the beginning of the film. Also, juror #2 does not seem to be able to explain why he feels that the accused is either innocent or guilty. This is contrary to jurors #3,#4 and #10 who at the start of the movie, have no qualms about putting the accused to death and detailing exactly whey they feel that the boy should be worthy of such a fate. The remaining three holdouts all have different reasons why they think the boy is guilty; some are legitimate concerns while others are rooted in prejudice against the poor and minorities. Although misguided, the above mentioned jurors had the conviction to state specifically why they thought what they did and to be perfectly willing for a time and to stand up to what is becoming a numerous and vocal majority as the movie progresses. Jurors #2, and #10 are either too preoccupied to be bothered by the tremendous power they have over the accused, or are too timid and will go with the majority. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their civic responsibility as seriously as they needed to. Jurors #5, #9 and of course #8 are polar opposites of the above mentioned jurors.   At the beginning of the film, only juror #8 votes for the innocence of the accused.   Or rather there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in his mind. But juror #8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands alone in defiance to the other eleven jurors. He does not do this while void of fear. It is seen on his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is willing to vote with the majority if after a short deliberation and a second vote, he is still the lone dissenter. Juror #8 is skeptical about many aspects of this boy’s life; his childhood and especially the system that would allow such a boy to fall through the cracks and almost invite this type of behavior (had be been guilty) and feels that an intense and methodical discussion is warranted before he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent death of a fellow human being. This type of moral fortitude, courage and attention to duty goes rewarded by juror #9; the oldest juror who once he has a companion, has no trouble standing up to the intense verbal ridicule of the majority, specifically juror #3,#7,#10. By this act, the group process’s momentum slowly starts to shift away from rendering a guilty verdict to instead empowering those timid jurors who have doubt as to the guilt of the accused but were too afraid to speak as they knew that they could not handle the onslaught levied against them by jurors #3 and #10. The jury room consists of polar opposites when it comes to their fulfillment of their duty in this matter. It is not the specific vote that they cast that makes them the most different, but in the way that they came to that decision. Each juror possessed a different decision making process concerning how they voted, how quickly they changed their vote and how resistant others were to let â€Å"one of them† go free. It is very rare for twelve different people to be completely impartial and void of any prejudices. This was the case especially for juror #3. He is the last of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in order for him to do so, a great deal of internal and personal problems and frustrations must be overcome for him to change his vote. Juror #3 is a traditional, hard nosed individual who taught himself to be tough as well as his son, remarking that when his only son was nine and walked away from a fight, it make him sick and he resolved to make a man out of his son. At the time of the trial, his son is twenty two and it is safe to say that they have a contentious relationship for the past few years. The son, most likely, resisted the intense tactics of his father and they have not spoken in years.   This has caused the father a great deal of pain and this pain served as the main source of the father’s hatred for the accused.   Juror #3 sees a correlation between the accused and his son and exerts little effort to disguise that bias. The accused had a troubled relationship with has father as well. Juror #3 sees both the accused and his son as being ungrateful to their fathers and feels that there should be consequences for this disrespect. He seems to have no power over his son for if he did, they would be reconciled or at least there would be visits between them. But he does have power over the accused to put him to death for what his hatred tells him that the boy must obviously be guilty.   The accused stands for everything that juror #3 hates and coupled with his tough exterior, is the last to submit to letting the accused go free. On the opposite end of the spectrum are jurors #11, 5 and 8. Juror #11 is a watch maker from Eastern Europe. Even though he is Caucasian, he is conscious of his ethnicity and the prejudices that come with being from a different country. He sympathizes with the accused and how his ethnic background puts him at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of daily life in 1950’s America. At the beginning of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused but the racist generalizations made by jurors #7 and 10 are very effective in showing   juror #11 that there are certain prejudices in play that need to be examined. Along with the methodical explanation by juror #8, the watchmaker changes his vote to not guilty and does not waver for the rest of the movie despite intense pressure from juror #7 and #10 to convince him of the contrary and to play on the fears the watchmaker has of being different. Also motivated by the obvious shift in the group process away from the ideology that encourages a guilty verdict, the above mentioned jurors do all that they can to slow the momentum.   The way in which the watchmaker comes to his decisions in a non biased, sympathetic and dutiful process and is willing to absorb ridicule against the prejudices of jurors # 3 and 10; some of the same prejudices which force them to be the last to change their vote, is honorable and worthy of mention; second only to that of juror #8, the lone dissenter. The movie wastes no time in pointing out who will emerge the leaders in the jury room. One would think that naturally, the foreman would be selected as the leader and that the proceeding would be run under his watchful eye.   But that is not the case. The foreman has no such ambition and is quick to offer his seat to anyone who thinks that they might be able to do a better job once an argument arises on how the deliberations would be conducted. By the simple yet courageous action of juror #8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while knowing that such an action would be the source of ridicule, quickly makes him as one of the leaders in the jury room. Juror #8 becomes the leader by not only being the sole dissenter in the face of ridicule but in the way that he reacts to that ridicule; through a quiet, confident and respectful resolve which earns him not only respect from people who are not used to such treatment, but also converts to his call for a complete examination of the facts. It is this unbiased and caring demeanor that helps his argument to have legitimacy unlike the boisterous juror #3 and #10 whose demeanor steadily helps them to lose converts until they are the only ones left. On the other end of the spectrum are jurors #3 and #10. It is obvious that they have ulterior motives in seeing the accused gets the electric chair.   They are tough on crime, short on compassion and frequent on racist generalizations which cloud their mind and sour their soul with such hatful rhetoric. These prejudices come busting out towards the end of the movie when jurors #3 and #10 are the most desperate as they are now left alone with the intense eyes of jurors who at the beginning of their deliberations, supported their discriminatory ideology by voting for the guilt of the accused. Once the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror#3, set them apart as they infamously emerge as the other leaders in the jury room. The fact that juror #3 allows his frustrations with his son to come into play with his judgment towards the guilt of the accused and that he his mannerisms are so over the top, helps him emerge as the other main leader in the jury room. His prejudice lies in the age of the accused being close to that of his own son with whom he has had a troubled relationship and a troubled past. Juror #3 may or may not hate his son but he is very discouraged and displeased with the way that things have gone in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused. The prejudice of juror #10 lies not in the age of the accused by rather in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of New York where crime runs rampant and juror #10 feels that the accused is guilty by association since he came from such squalor and with a troubled past. However, juror #10 is not nearly as vocal in his suspicion of juror #5 who grew up in a similar atmosphere simply because the juror is white. It is more the race of the accused than where he grew up that seems to motivate juror #10 into the assumption that the boy is guilty. At first, it is the outspoken demeanor of juror #10 that helps to set him apart from the other jurors in a leadership role. But his leadership emerges in more infamous ways as he vocalizes his racist assumptions of the accused in one final and desperate outburst as he desperately tried to win back converts to his cause. He uses such words as â€Å"those people† and â€Å"you know how they are† and finally, the accused is â€Å"one of them.† The phrases are used at the beginning of the movie and assumed as fact in the mind of juror #10 mostly due to the fact that his only opposition is from juror #8 who is not being taken seriously and is no threat to him. However, when the group process shows that juror #10 is in a shrinking majority and will soon be a lone standout, along with juror #3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail. The main source for the drama in the jury room is the requirement that their decision must be unanimous. If for the simple fact that everyone must be in agreement in either sending the accused to his death or setting him free, there would have been no screenplay to begin with. The jurors might have argued the merits of the case but with there being no need for a unanimous decision, juror #8 would have known that unless he could win six more converts in what would have to be a short amount of time, the deliberations would soon be over. The ulterior motives of jurors #3 and #10 would never have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction displayed by jurors #1 #2 and #12 would never had been recognized and the heroic actions of juror #8 and to a lesser extent juror #9, would never had sparked such heated yet important and necessary debate within the jury room. Every man left the jury room a little different than when they first came. Jurors #2, #5, #11 and #12 may have been emboldened in their private lives and to let future injustices not slide as easily as they may have had in the past. Jurors #3, #10 and to a lesser extent #7, recognized their prejudices and may have exerted some effort to confront these problems. The phrase â€Å"group process† refers to the behavior of people in groups, such as task groups that are trying to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 Angry Men has numerous and obvious examples of group process. It is the fact that twelve men must come to a unanimous decision that such examples can be shown. If there were only one or two jurors and/or a unanimous decision did not have to be achieved, any aspect of group process would have been absent. The jurors can be grouped into three main groups: those who are strongly in favor of giving the accused the electric chair, those who are willing to go along with the majority and those who are strongly in favor of being oblivious from the glaring prejudices and racist assumptions and quickly latch onto the moralist; juror #8 and then #9. Jurors #2 #5 and #11 are beneficiaries of group process.   They cannot do alone what is made easier in a group once jurors #8 and #9 have voted for the innocence of the accused. Alone, they could never have done what #8 and #9 had done: stand up to vocal ridicule and to do it alone. But once the first step has been made towards an attempt to judge the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors #2, #5 and #11 are relieved to vote their consciousness instead of giving into the pressure levied against them by specifically jurors #3 #4 and #10. The negative aspects of group process would have been guilty for defective decision making if it hadn’t been for the fact that juror #8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused. 12 Angry Men will continue to stand the test of time since it speaks eloquently on many different areas: that prejudices are an impediment to everyone in a democratic society and that standing up for a belief, despite knowing the dangers of such a stand, is honorable and should be recognized as courageous. But also, people do in groups what they wouldn’t do in private. Individuality within a group of strong opinions comes at a price and that price is most often ridicule and misunderstanding. If at the beginning of the movie, the foreman had taken a secret vote, juror #8 may not have been the lone dissenter. The jurors that did not put a great deal of value in the democratic process of trial by jury and didn’t feel that a daily salary of $3 was not worthy of their methodical analysis of the facts, were content to go with the majority, no matter what that decision said. But for the jurors who made it a point to shift group process away from a guilty verdict based on racist assumptions and in light of strong ridicule and little monetary compensation, this movie will continue to be studied and appreciated for years to come. 12 angry men 12 Angry Men tells the story of twelve jurors thrust together in a hot and humid room on a New York summer evening to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old Hispanic boy with a troubled past.   He is accused of stabbing his father; a man with whom he has had a contentious relationship for years.   The accused is fighting an uphill battle towards an acquittal: the eye witness account of his neighbors, a court appointed public defender whose apathy towards this case is mirrored by more than one of the jurors and his race which seems to be a major strike against him in the mind of some of the jurors, specifically juror #10. From the onset, it seems like an open and shut case with the accused being sentenced to death for the murder of his father. But if that were the case, 12 Angry Men, with its study of human contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would have been long forgotten. Instead, 12 Angry Men is a testament to the notion that standing up for ones beliefs that have come from an unbiased and methodical overview of the facts, even if those beliefs are contrary to the vocal majority, is honorable and that such prejudices which cloud those facts are an impediment to every citizen in a democratic society. Being forced to listen to six days of testimony while at the same time being paid only three dollars a day for their services, it is easy to see how some or most of the jurors at the beginning of deliberations, seemed apathetic towards the great responsibility they have to give the accused their undivided attention while deciding his guilt or innocence. This is the case for a number of jurors; specifically juror #7 who is preoccupied with making the Yankee/Indians game later that day. He feels rushed by the proceedings and desires quick deliberations followed by a unanimous guilty vote. He feels that the accused is guilty but most likely would have voted the way of the majority if that meant that he could have gone to the game, gone home or just been anywhere other than in the courtroom for any additional length of time.   He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded about the awesome power he has to either put a man to death or to set him free. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused should be paramount in his mind but sadly, it is not. Juror #5 is not the only one who shrinks from his responsibility. Juror #12, the well dressed and jovial salesman feels that the accused is guilty but when pressed to explain his reasoning, cannot and quickly changes his mind when pressured to do so. Juror #12 is preoccupied with his job and maintaining a light atmosphere in the jury room; almost oblivious to the matter at hand.   Juror #2 is in many ways, the same as juror #12 except for the fact that his personality is not nearly as outgoing but in the same way, lacks convictions and is content to go with the crowd. He does not take his civic duty seriously and is afraid to stand up against the crowd unlike juror #8; the lone dissenter at the beginning of the film. Also, juror #2 does not seem to be able to explain why he feels that the accused is either innocent or guilty. This is contrary to jurors #3,#4 and #10 who at the start of the movie, have no qualms about putting the accused to death and detailing exactly whey they feel that the boy should be worthy of such a fate. The remaining three holdouts all have different reasons why they think the boy is guilty; some are legitimate concerns while others are rooted in prejudice against the poor and minorities. Although misguided, the above mentioned jurors had the conviction to state specifically why they thought what they did and to be perfectly willing for a time and to stand up to what is becoming a numerous and vocal majority as the movie progresses. Jurors #2, and #10 are either too preoccupied to be bothered by the tremendous power they have over the accused, or are too timid and will go with the majority. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their civic responsibility as seriously as they needed to. Jurors #5, #9 and of course #8 are polar opposites of the above mentioned jurors.   At the beginning of the film, only juror #8 votes for the innocence of the accused.   Or rather there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in his mind. But juror #8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands alone in defiance to the other eleven jurors. He does not do this while void of fear. It is seen on his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is willing to vote with the majority if after a short deliberation and a second vote, he is still the lone dissenter. Juror #8 is skeptical about many aspects of this boy’s life; his childhood and especially the system that would allow such a boy to fall through the cracks and almost invite this type of behavior (had be been guilty) and feels that an intense and methodical discussion is warranted before he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent death of a fellow human being. This type of moral fortitude, courage and attention to duty goes rewarded by juror #9; the oldest juror who once he has a companion, has no trouble standing up to the intense verbal ridicule of the majority, specifically juror #3,#7,#10. By this act, the group process’s momentum slowly starts to shift away from rendering a guilty verdict to instead empowering those timid jurors who have doubt as to the guilt of the accused but were too afraid to speak as they knew that they could not handle the onslaught levied against them by jurors #3 and #10. The jury room consists of polar opposites when it comes to their fulfillment of their duty in this matter. It is not the specific vote that they cast that makes them the most different, but in the way that they came to that decision. Each juror possessed a different decision making process concerning how they voted, how quickly they changed their vote and how resistant others were to let â€Å"one of them† go free. It is very rare for twelve different people to be completely impartial and void of any prejudices. This was the case especially for juror #3. He is the last of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in order for him to do so, a great deal of internal and personal problems and frustrations must be overcome for him to change his vote. Juror #3 is a traditional, hard nosed individual who taught himself to be tough as well as his son, remarking that when his only son was nine and walked away from a fight, it make him sick and he resolved to make a man out of his son. At the time of the trial, his son is twenty two and it is safe to say that they have a contentious relationship for the past few years. The son, most likely, resisted the intense tactics of his father and they have not spoken in years.   This has caused the father a great deal of pain and this pain served as the main source of the father’s hatred for the accused.   Juror #3 sees a correlation between the accused and his son and exerts little effort to disguise that bias. The accused had a troubled relationship with has father as well. Juror #3 sees both the accused and his son as being ungrateful to their fathers and feels that there should be consequences for this disrespect. He seems to have no power over his son for if he did, they would be reconciled or at least there would be visits between them. But he does have power over the accused to put him to death for what his hatred tells him that the boy must obviously be guilty.   The accused stands for everything that juror #3 hates and coupled with his tough exterior, is the last to submit to letting the accused go free. On the opposite end of the spectrum are jurors #11, 5 and 8. Juror #11 is a watch maker from Eastern Europe. Even though he is Caucasian, he is conscious of his ethnicity and the prejudices that come with being from a different country. He sympathizes with the accused and how his ethnic background puts him at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of daily life in 1950’s America. At the beginning of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused but the racist generalizations made by jurors #7 and 10 are very effective in showing   juror #11 that there are certain prejudices in play that need to be examined. Along with the methodical explanation by juror #8, the watchmaker changes his vote to not guilty and does not waver for the rest of the movie despite intense pressure from juror #7 and #10 to convince him of the contrary and to play on the fears the watchmaker has of being different. Also motivated by the obvious shift in the group process away from the ideology that encourages a guilty verdict, the above mentioned jurors do all that they can to slow the momentum.   The way in which the watchmaker comes to his decisions in a non biased, sympathetic and dutiful process and is willing to absorb ridicule against the prejudices of jurors # 3 and 10; some of the same prejudices which force them to be the last to change their vote, is honorable and worthy of mention; second only to that of juror #8, the lone dissenter. The movie wastes no time in pointing out who will emerge the leaders in the jury room. One would think that naturally, the foreman would be selected as the leader and that the proceeding would be run under his watchful eye.   But that is not the case. The foreman has no such ambition and is quick to offer his seat to anyone who thinks that they might be able to do a better job once an argument arises on how the deliberations would be conducted. By the simple yet courageous action of juror #8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while knowing that such an action would be the source of ridicule, quickly makes him as one of the leaders in the jury room. Juror #8 becomes the leader by not only being the sole dissenter in the face of ridicule but in the way that he reacts to that ridicule; through a quiet, confident and respectful resolve which earns him not only respect from people who are not used to such treatment, but also converts to his call for a complete examination of the facts. It is this unbiased and caring demeanor that helps his argument to have legitimacy unlike the boisterous juror #3 and #10 whose demeanor steadily helps them to lose converts until they are the only ones left. On the other end of the spectrum are jurors #3 and #10. It is obvious that they have ulterior motives in seeing the accused gets the electric chair.   They are tough on crime, short on compassion and frequent on racist generalizations which cloud their mind and sour their soul with such hatful rhetoric. These prejudices come busting out towards the end of the movie when jurors #3 and #10 are the most desperate as they are now left alone with the intense eyes of jurors who at the beginning of their deliberations, supported their discriminatory ideology by voting for the guilt of the accused. Once the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror#3, set them apart as they infamously emerge as the other leaders in the jury room. The fact that juror #3 allows his frustrations with his son to come into play with his judgment towards the guilt of the accused and that he his mannerisms are so over the top, helps him emerge as the other main leader in the jury room. His prejudice lies in the age of the accused being close to that of his own son with whom he has had a troubled relationship and a troubled past. Juror #3 may or may not hate his son but he is very discouraged and displeased with the way that things have gone in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused. The prejudice of juror #10 lies not in the age of the accused by rather in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of New York where crime runs rampant and juror #10 feels that the accused is guilty by association since he came from such squalor and with a troubled past. However, juror #10 is not nearly as vocal in his suspicion of juror #5 who grew up in a similar atmosphere simply because the juror is white. It is more the race of the accused than where he grew up that seems to motivate juror #10 into the assumption that the boy is guilty. At first, it is the outspoken demeanor of juror #10 that helps to set him apart from the other jurors in a leadership role. But his leadership emerges in more infamous ways as he vocalizes his racist assumptions of the accused in one final and desperate outburst as he desperately tried to win back converts to his cause. He uses such words as â€Å"those people† and â€Å"you know how they are† and finally, the accused is â€Å"one of them.† The phrases are used at the beginning of the movie and assumed as fact in the mind of juror #10 mostly due to the fact that his only opposition is from juror #8 who is not being taken seriously and is no threat to him. However, when the group process shows that juror #10 is in a shrinking majority and will soon be a lone standout, along with juror #3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail. The main source for the drama in the jury room is the requirement that their decision must be unanimous. If for the simple fact that everyone must be in agreement in either sending the accused to his death or setting him free, there would have been no screenplay to begin with. The jurors might have argued the merits of the case but with there being no need for a unanimous decision, juror #8 would have known that unless he could win six more converts in what would have to be a short amount of time, the deliberations would soon be over. The ulterior motives of jurors #3 and #10 would never have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction displayed by jurors #1 #2 and #12 would never had been recognized and the heroic actions of juror #8 and to a lesser extent juror #9, would never had sparked such heated yet important and necessary debate within the jury room. Every man left the jury room a little different than when they first came. Jurors #2, #5, #11 and #12 may have been emboldened in their private lives and to let future injustices not slide as easily as they may have had in the past. Jurors #3, #10 and to a lesser extent #7, recognized their prejudices and may have exerted some effort to confront these problems. The phrase â€Å"group process† refers to the behavior of people in groups, such as task groups that are trying to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 Angry Men has numerous and obvious examples of group process. It is the fact that twelve men must come to a unanimous decision that such examples can be shown. If there were only one or two jurors and/or a unanimous decision did not have to be achieved, any aspect of group process would have been absent. The jurors can be grouped into three main groups: those who are strongly in favor of giving the accused the electric chair, those who are willing to go along with the majority and those who are strongly in favor of being oblivious from the glaring prejudices and racist assumptions and quickly latch onto the moralist; juror #8 and then #9. Jurors #2 #5 and #11 are beneficiaries of group process.   They cannot do alone what is made easier in a group once jurors #8 and #9 have voted for the innocence of the accused. Alone, they could never have done what #8 and #9 had done: stand up to vocal ridicule and to do it alone. But once the first step has been made towards an attempt to judge the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors #2, #5 and #11 are relieved to vote their consciousness instead of giving into the pressure levied against them by specifically jurors #3 #4 and #10. The negative aspects of group process would have been guilty for defective decision making if it hadn’t been for the fact that juror #8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused. 12 Angry Men will continue to stand the test of time since it speaks eloquently on many different areas: that prejudices are an impediment to everyone in a democratic society and that standing up for a belief, despite knowing the dangers of such a stand, is honorable and should be recognized as courageous. But also, people do in groups what they wouldn’t do in private. Individuality within a group of strong opinions comes at a price and that price is most often ridicule and misunderstanding. If at the beginning of the movie, the foreman had taken a secret vote, juror #8 may not have been the lone dissenter. The jurors that did not put a great deal of value in the democratic process of trial by jury and didn’t feel that a daily salary of $3 was not worthy of their methodical analysis of the facts, were content to go with the majority, no matter what that decision said. But for the jurors who made it a point to shift group process away from a guilty verdict based on racist assumptions and in light of strong ridicule and little monetary compensation, this movie will continue to be studied and appreciated for years to come. 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men 5%) Task B To what extent could prescriptive models of strategy be used to explain the strategic success of Facebook? (1500 words, 12. 5 %) Total weighting for Assignment 1: 25% Individual Assignment: Marking Guidelines 100 marks = 25% weighting †¢ Critical discussion and application of relevant models and concepts on strategic capabilities to understand the competitive advantage of Facebook (25 marks) †¢ Critical examination of conventional strategic management models to explain the success Facebook (25 marks) Discussion of contemporary models/ studies such as complexity theory, chaos and positive returns economics that may give an insight into Facebook’s explosive growth (25marks) †¢ Academic protocol – quality of academic references, the presentation of these and the overall structuring and format of the business report (25 marks) (Total 100 marks=25%) ————————————†”——————————————————————————– Group Assignment Assignment Brief Task A Using relevant strategic management concepts, conduct an analysis of the film: â€Å"12 Angry Men† ( Dir. Sidney Lumet. Orion-Nova, 1957. Film) and discuss the implications of your findings for decision making in a business organisation. (Max: 1000 words or 5 slides) Task B The Board of Directors of a medium-sized company of your own choosing have recently attended a conference on contemporary developments in strategic thinking. They were particularly impressed by the Blue ocean concept. As consultants, critically discuss the ways in which the Board could shift its current strategy in oder to open up new market possibilities and to create sustainable value for its current and new stakeholders. 2000 words or 10 Slides) . Group presentation guidelines †¢ Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Non-participation and/or non-attendance will result in restriction of marks for this aspect of assessment †¢ The group size will be determined by the module leader and module teaching team and will normally be in the range o f 6-8 group members (normal maximum). In specific circumstances this may be varied. †¢ The formal Group Presentation will be delivered by a maximum of three members of the group. The other group members will be required to answer questions put them by assessors at the end of the presentation. †¢ The absolute maximum presentation period is 20 minutes. This will be timed and there will be NO extensions to this time period. Student Groups are strongly advised to rehearse their presentation to ensure that the time period is strictly adhered to. †¢ Presentations will be stopped by the lecturer/assessment team at the end of 20 minutes †¢ Presentations are followed by Questions which are required to be fielded by/responded to by all the members of the group. The absolute timed period for questions is 10 minutes. †¢ Both times are required to be strictly adhered to. †¢ There is a stipulated Maximum of 15 power point slides in the 20 minute presentation. †¢ Students are required to be aware and are formally advised of all maximum times which will be cut off times with no exceptions. †¢ Power Point printouts with the individual texts provided for the presentation by each student are required to be handed in to the assessment team/lecturer at the time of the presentation immediately before the commencement of the presentation and will be retained by the lecturer/assessment team. The contribution to the Group Presentation is deemed to be equivalent to 3000 words from each student. †¢ The Assessment Weighting for this aspect of the group assessment is 25% (all students in the particular group are awarded the same percentage) Group Presentation Evaluation Criteria 100 marks= 25% weighting Organisation †¢ Topic clea rly stated †¢ Structure and scope of presentation clearly stated †¢ Topic developed in order stated †¢ Speakers summed up main points in conclusion 10 marks Content Knowledge of subject (background of company and storyline of film and their relevance to module) †¢ Application and discussion of relevant conceptual models †¢ Clarity of business concept for Blue Ocean †¢ Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected †¢ Speakers in control of subject matter 30 marks Confidence †¢ Speakers look relaxed and confident †¢ Professionally dressed †¢ Maintain eye contact †¢ Engage with audience and display awareness of audience response 10 marks Speech †¢ Varied paced †¢ Use of conversational style avoiding jargon and long-winded â€Å"bookish† xplanation of relevant concepts †¢ Appropriate volume †¢ Clear pronunciation and articulation †¢ Accurate grammar 10 marks Visual Aids à ¢â‚¬ ¢ Clear and legible †¢ Introduced at right time †¢ User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much information †¢ Impact on audience †¢ Creativity and novelty 10 marks Timing †¢ Well-timed presentation †¢ Time divided appropriately between tasks 10 marks Discussion management and handling of questions †¢ Respond confidently to questions †¢ Deflect difficult or irrelevant questions 20 marks (Total 100 marks= 25%) Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Marks will be restricted for non-participation and/or non-attendance. Module Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:- Upon successful completion of the assessment, students will be able to: Assignment 1 (Individual): †¢ analyse the aims, concept and role of strategic management Assignment 2 (Group Assignment) †¢ critically analyse how the different perspectives of social science disciplines inform strategic management †¢ evaluate the debates surrounding contemporary strategic issues 12 Angry Men 5%) Task B To what extent could prescriptive models of strategy be used to explain the strategic success of Facebook? (1500 words, 12. 5 %) Total weighting for Assignment 1: 25% Individual Assignment: Marking Guidelines 100 marks = 25% weighting †¢ Critical discussion and application of relevant models and concepts on strategic capabilities to understand the competitive advantage of Facebook (25 marks) †¢ Critical examination of conventional strategic management models to explain the success Facebook (25 marks) Discussion of contemporary models/ studies such as complexity theory, chaos and positive returns economics that may give an insight into Facebook’s explosive growth (25marks) †¢ Academic protocol – quality of academic references, the presentation of these and the overall structuring and format of the business report (25 marks) (Total 100 marks=25%) ————————————†”——————————————————————————– Group Assignment Assignment Brief Task A Using relevant strategic management concepts, conduct an analysis of the film: â€Å"12 Angry Men† ( Dir. Sidney Lumet. Orion-Nova, 1957. Film) and discuss the implications of your findings for decision making in a business organisation. (Max: 1000 words or 5 slides) Task B The Board of Directors of a medium-sized company of your own choosing have recently attended a conference on contemporary developments in strategic thinking. They were particularly impressed by the Blue ocean concept. As consultants, critically discuss the ways in which the Board could shift its current strategy in oder to open up new market possibilities and to create sustainable value for its current and new stakeholders. 2000 words or 10 Slides) . Group presentation guidelines †¢ Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Non-participation and/or non-attendance will result in restriction of marks for this aspect of assessment †¢ The group size will be determined by the module leader and module teaching team and will normally be in the range o f 6-8 group members (normal maximum). In specific circumstances this may be varied. †¢ The formal Group Presentation will be delivered by a maximum of three members of the group. The other group members will be required to answer questions put them by assessors at the end of the presentation. †¢ The absolute maximum presentation period is 20 minutes. This will be timed and there will be NO extensions to this time period. Student Groups are strongly advised to rehearse their presentation to ensure that the time period is strictly adhered to. †¢ Presentations will be stopped by the lecturer/assessment team at the end of 20 minutes †¢ Presentations are followed by Questions which are required to be fielded by/responded to by all the members of the group. The absolute timed period for questions is 10 minutes. †¢ Both times are required to be strictly adhered to. †¢ There is a stipulated Maximum of 15 power point slides in the 20 minute presentation. †¢ Students are required to be aware and are formally advised of all maximum times which will be cut off times with no exceptions. †¢ Power Point printouts with the individual texts provided for the presentation by each student are required to be handed in to the assessment team/lecturer at the time of the presentation immediately before the commencement of the presentation and will be retained by the lecturer/assessment team. The contribution to the Group Presentation is deemed to be equivalent to 3000 words from each student. †¢ The Assessment Weighting for this aspect of the group assessment is 25% (all students in the particular group are awarded the same percentage) Group Presentation Evaluation Criteria 100 marks= 25% weighting Organisation †¢ Topic clea rly stated †¢ Structure and scope of presentation clearly stated †¢ Topic developed in order stated †¢ Speakers summed up main points in conclusion 10 marks Content Knowledge of subject (background of company and storyline of film and their relevance to module) †¢ Application and discussion of relevant conceptual models †¢ Clarity of business concept for Blue Ocean †¢ Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected †¢ Speakers in control of subject matter 30 marks Confidence †¢ Speakers look relaxed and confident †¢ Professionally dressed †¢ Maintain eye contact †¢ Engage with audience and display awareness of audience response 10 marks Speech †¢ Varied paced †¢ Use of conversational style avoiding jargon and long-winded â€Å"bookish† xplanation of relevant concepts †¢ Appropriate volume †¢ Clear pronunciation and articulation †¢ Accurate grammar 10 marks Visual Aids à ¢â‚¬ ¢ Clear and legible †¢ Introduced at right time †¢ User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much information †¢ Impact on audience †¢ Creativity and novelty 10 marks Timing †¢ Well-timed presentation †¢ Time divided appropriately between tasks 10 marks Discussion management and handling of questions †¢ Respond confidently to questions †¢ Deflect difficult or irrelevant questions 20 marks (Total 100 marks= 25%) Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Marks will be restricted for non-participation and/or non-attendance. Module Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:- Upon successful completion of the assessment, students will be able to: Assignment 1 (Individual): †¢ analyse the aims, concept and role of strategic management Assignment 2 (Group Assignment) †¢ critically analyse how the different perspectives of social science disciplines inform strategic management †¢ evaluate the debates surrounding contemporary strategic issues

IDENTITY THEFT CAN AFFECT Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

IDENTITY THEFT CAN AFFECT - Research Paper Example During 2012, more than 12 million reported being victims of identity fraud in America. The number showed an increase from that reported in 2011 and 2010: the figures reported were USD 11.6 and 10.2 million respectively (Javelin Strategy & Research, 2013). The average costs incurred by the victims of identity theft were USD 365 (Javelin Strategy & Research, 2013). This paper will explore the growth of identity theft, its effects on individuals and the wider community and the types of identity theft. The problem of identity theft and identity fraud is worsened by the lack of cyber borders and the increase in globalization, which make it possible for identity thieves to commit crimes within and outside the borders of the US. The commission of these crimes within and outside the country makes the work of investigating them more difficult. The fact that the criminals possess numerous identities and also the fact that they may use networks to engage in the crimes also challenges the investigative role of law enforcement officials (Finklea, 2013). Additionally, identity theft is often connected and committed in tandem with other crimes, ranging from bank fraud, credit card theft and employment and immigration fraud. More importantly, it is necessary to take into account that the impacts of identity theft and fraud felt by businesses and individuals are not only limited to financial burdens, but also other important areas (Javelin Strategy & Research, 2013). For example, in assessing the national impacts felt by the US, it is important to note that identity theft and the associated crimes affect the health of the national economy and also the security of the nation. It is necessary to take into account that, in many cases, policy makers have differed over the role of the federal government in preventing the crime, mitigating its effects, providing the best

Market Entry Proposal 4 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Market Entry Proposal 4 - Essay Example This essay stresses that Brazil’s income distribution is quite uneven wherein the wealthiest income groups cover almost half the GDP and most of these groups live in states of Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro. It has been viewed that almost all the manufacturing industries are located in Sao Paulo and there is a huge inequality of income between the lower class and upper class of people in the nation. Moreover, the crime rate in the country has been continuously increasing which poses a major threat to smartphone industry. On the other hand, demand for smartphones in Brazil has increased and the Brazilian population are inclined towards information society. This paper makes a conclusion that joint venture mode of strategy is the best approach that can be used by Xiaomi so as to enter into the Brazilian market. Therefore, it has been proposed that Telefonica must be opted by Xiaomi to joint venture with which would help it in successfully penetrating the market of Brazil. Thus, Xiaomi in order to implement joint venture effectively must follow a step by step process so as to meet its strategic objective of global market presence. .). Firstly, the desired goals and objectives must be decided by Xiaomi that would help it in deriving the desired outcomes as well. The second step for implementing joint venture is that the Brazilian market must be appropriately analysed which would help it in deriving the market potential and customer purchasing trends in Brazil.

Analytical hierarchy process Essay Example for Free

Analytical hierarchy process Essay Decision-making is human activity whereby value judgments regarding the attractiveness of preferences play a major role. There are various ways through which an organization can supplement and improve decision analysis; however, the incorporation of human decisions with technology through the design and utilization multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) contributes towards the success of an organization to a great extent. This essay provides a detailed analysis and evaluation of the multi criteria decision analysis as applied in logistics and supply chain decision analysis in contemporary business and organizations. The first section of this essay introduces the various types of MCDA and provides details about how analytical hierarchy process (AHP) works, being one of the most popular MCDA techniques. This is followed by a detailed analysis of various decision problems in logistics and supply chain which involve the use of MCDA techniques: such include supply chain performance management, supplier selection, production-driven characteristics, logistics and supply chain capital and infrastructural investments. In section that follows, the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of MCDA are clearly detailed out, in special reference to the logistics and supply chain department of an organization. Finally, the essay provides a concluding paragraph which is based on the author’s opinion regarding the effectiveness and success of multi criteria decision analysis in supply chain and logistics management as well as recommendations on what ought to be done to make the application more beneficial to decision makers and the organization at large. Introduction MCDA refers to a multiple decision criteria that aimed at assisting decision makers who are often faced with many and inconsistent problem evaluations. The goal of MCDA is typically to emphasize on the conflicting and inconsistent areas and derive a technique of harmonization (Xiang, 2006). The MCDA methods commonly used in the contemporary decision field include analytical hierarchy process(AHP), weighted sum model(WSM), analytical network process(ANP), inner product vectors(IPV), Weighted product model(WPM), multi attribute value theory(MAVT) , multi attribute utility theory(MAUT), SMART (simple multiple attribute rating technique), Equal Swaps, MACBETH(Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique) (Xiang, 2006). Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) This is one of the most famous decision criteria methods. It is a controlled technique used to deal with multifaceted decisions. AHP applies a quantitative comparison technique based on pair-wise evaluations of the decision criteria. It assists the decision maker in generating one among the best alternatives to their problem in accordance to the decision maker’s comprehension of the problem. The method applies the skills of psychology and mathematics to provide rational, comprehensive structure for framing a decision problem, presenting, computing and quantifying the elements, linking elements to goals and assessing other alternative solutions. It is used in education, business, healthcare and other industries as a decision support tool (Jamil and Linkov, 2004). Users of this method begin by decomposing the decision problem into a hierarchy of straightforwardly understandable sub-problems, which can be separately analyzed: the chosen decision problem elements may relate to any aspect of, the decision problem, whether tangible or not. After building the hierarchy, decision makers then evaluate the elements systematically by making well thought comparisons in pairs. Here, AHP necessitates that human judgments should be used while making the comparisons over and above the underlying information to make evaluations between the elements (Jamil and Linkov, 2004). AHP then changes the evaluations into numerical values which can be compared and processed in the whole decision problem. Numerical weights are generated for all the hierarchical elements. This allows for diversity and enables the decision maker to compare consistently and rationally between incommensurable elements. It is this ability that distinguishes AHP from all other techniques if MCDA (Jamil and Linkov, 2004). Finally, numerical values are calculated for all the alternatives. The numerical value of each alternative represents the ability of such an alternative to accomplish the goal of the decision. This makes it possible to directly consider the ability of all available alternatives using their numerical value so that a rational decision maker chooses the alternative with the highest value since it indicates that such an alternative will best suit a solution to the decision problem (Jamil and Linkov, 2004).

Impact of Tone in Charlotte Brontes Jane Eyre :: Jane Eyre Essays

Jane Eyre: The Impact of the Tone The tone of Jane Eyre is direct, perhaps even blunt. There is no prissy little-girl sensibility, but a startlingly independent, even skeptical perspective. At the age of 10, the orphan Jane already sees through the hypocrisy of her self-righteous Christian elders. She tells her bullying Aunt Reed, "People think you a good woman, but you are bad; hard-hearted. You are deceitful!" and "I am glad you are no relative of mine; I will never call you aunt again so long as I live. I will never come to see you when I am grown up; and if any one asks me how I liked you, and how you treated me, I will say that the very thought of you makes me sick." (In fact, when her aunt is elderly and dying, Jane does return to visit her, and forgives her. But that's far in the future.) With the logic of a mature philosopher, in fact rather like Friedrich Nietzsche to come, Jane protests the basic admonitions of Christianity as a schoolgirl: "I must resist those who ... persist in disliking me; I must resis t those who punish me unjustly. It is as natural as that I should love those who show me affection, or submit to punishment when I feel that it is deserved." And this bold declaration, which would have struck readers of 1847 (in fact, of 1947) as radical and "infeminine": "Restlessness was in my nature; it agitated me to pain sometimes ... Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a constraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer." Instead, the novel begins with the seemingly disappointed statement: "There was no possibility of taking a walk that [rainy] day," and counters almost immediately with, "I was glad of it; I never liked long walks." When excluded from Christmas revelries in the Reed household, the child Jane says, "To speak the truth, I had not the least wish to go into company." Jane's defiance, which doesn't exclude childlike fears, strikes us as forthright in the way of the adolescent temperaments of other famous literary voices -- Jo March of Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women," Huck Finn, Holden Caulfield and their now-countless younger siblings. Impact of Tone in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre :: Jane Eyre Essays Jane Eyre: The Impact of the Tone The tone of Jane Eyre is direct, perhaps even blunt. There is no prissy little-girl sensibility, but a startlingly independent, even skeptical perspective. At the age of 10, the orphan Jane already sees through the hypocrisy of her self-righteous Christian elders. She tells her bullying Aunt Reed, "People think you a good woman, but you are bad; hard-hearted. You are deceitful!" and "I am glad you are no relative of mine; I will never call you aunt again so long as I live. I will never come to see you when I am grown up; and if any one asks me how I liked you, and how you treated me, I will say that the very thought of you makes me sick." (In fact, when her aunt is elderly and dying, Jane does return to visit her, and forgives her. But that's far in the future.) With the logic of a mature philosopher, in fact rather like Friedrich Nietzsche to come, Jane protests the basic admonitions of Christianity as a schoolgirl: "I must resist those who ... persist in disliking me; I must resis t those who punish me unjustly. It is as natural as that I should love those who show me affection, or submit to punishment when I feel that it is deserved." And this bold declaration, which would have struck readers of 1847 (in fact, of 1947) as radical and "infeminine": "Restlessness was in my nature; it agitated me to pain sometimes ... Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a constraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer." Instead, the novel begins with the seemingly disappointed statement: "There was no possibility of taking a walk that [rainy] day," and counters almost immediately with, "I was glad of it; I never liked long walks." When excluded from Christmas revelries in the Reed household, the child Jane says, "To speak the truth, I had not the least wish to go into company." Jane's defiance, which doesn't exclude childlike fears, strikes us as forthright in the way of the adolescent temperaments of other famous literary voices -- Jo March of Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women," Huck Finn, Holden Caulfield and their now-countless younger siblings.

Marketing of Chanachur

Tea Industry of Bangladesh Bangladesh is a small tea producing country with 3% of the word’s tea production. Tea is agro based, labor incentive and export oriented sector and plays an important role in the national economy through export earnings, trade balance and employment generation. Our tea industry dates back to 1857 when the first tea garden was established at Malnicherra in Sylhet. To day we have 163 tea gardens. The annually production of tea 60 million Kg of made tea and hope to increase our production to 90 million Kg in the next 15 years. Basic Facts of Bangladesh Tea Industry 1.No of tea estates: 163 2. No of tea factories: 114 3. Total allocated area: 113863. 62 hectare 4. Total area under tea: 48610. 16 hectare Characteristics of Bangladeshi Tea Our tea grown on the lush green slopes of Surma and Halda Vallyes are fame for the following a. Appearance – Clearness b. Color – Bright c. Liquor – Pungent i. e. strong but not bitter d. Flavor â₠¬â€œ It has flavor of Assam tea Quality of our tea has the character of brightness with strength briskness and takes little time in brewing. Manufacture of Tea After plucking green leaf are transported to the factory for manufacture.The process of manufacturing comprises following stages- 1. Withering i. e. moisture removal of about 10-15 (65-70% wither) from leaf and bring some chemical for optimum quality development. 2. Fermentation i. e. oxidation process – when tea catechins i. e. polyphonols are degraded to desirable biochemical constituents named Theoflavin (TF) and Thearubigin (TR). 3. Drying i. e. moisture removal form oxidized leaf to 2-3% at dryer mouth level. 4. Sorting i. e. grading of made tea according to particles sizes and are given a grade name e. g.FP, FBOP, BOP, GBOP, OF, FOF, PD, RD, D, CD (10 Primary Grades of CTC) while manufacturing tea in Bangladesh, bright liquor with sufficient strength and aroma, pungency and ISO 3720 are ensured. Types of Tea Bang ladesh is manufacturing tea in the following two types a. CTC 99% b. Green Tea 1% The processed teas are after grading as per size and make are packed in airtight gunny bag or tea chest and sent our Bonded Warehouse in Chittagong for shipment. Types/ grades of different tea are as under- CATEGORY| GRADES| BROKENS| FP (Flowery Pekoe) | | FBOP (Flowery Broken Orange Pekoe)| BOP (Broken Orange Pekoe)| | GBOP (Golden Broken Orange Pekoe)| FANNINGS| OF (Orange Fanning)| | FOF (Flowery Orange Fanning)| DUST| PD (Pekoe Dust)| | RD (Red Dust)| | D (Dust)| | CD (Churamani Dust)| Marketing System Marketing system of Bangladesh tea is defined as the process of sale of manufactured tea in bulk or packed from tea state to the buyers at Chittagong Auction or at the estates levels from where teas are sold with the permission of Bangladesh Tea Board either directly to overseas buyers or internal traders. Tea Auction is held every Thursday at Chittagong. . Direct negotiation sale – Tea can be exported to foreign buyers through direct negotiation between the buyers and traders. 2. Ex Garden sale – In which case sales by the individual producers directly from the estate to the internal buyers (wholesalers & Retailers) take place. Marketing Channels of Tea Tea estate Tea auction Packet tea manufacturer Bidders Exporters Blenders Distribution Foreign buyers Wholesale Wholesalers Retailers Retailers Internal Market Internal market deals with the wholesale and retail business of tea for internal consumption of the country.In this case both wholesale and retail trade license is to be obtained from Bangladesh Tea Board along with Bidder ship license to participate in tea auction. The Tea Traders Association under the guidance of Bangladesh Tea Board arranges auction. All these licenses are renewable yearly. 2. 1 Industry Frame The tea industry of Bangladesh consist the total production by using the 163 tea gardens. The annually production of tea 60 million Kg of made tea and hope to increase our production to 90 million Kg in the next 15 years. the industry frame of tea is considered of national, multination and local companies.

Angels Demons Chapter 24-27

24 The security technician held his breath as his commander leaned over his shoulder, studying the bank of security monitors before them. A minute passed. The commander's silence was to be expected, the technician told himself. The commander was a man of rigid protocol. He had not risen to command one of the world's most elite security forces by talking first and thinking second. But what is he thinking? The object they were pondering on the monitor was a canister of some sort – a canister with transparent sides. That much was easy. It was the rest that was difficult. Inside the container, as if by some special effect, a small droplet of metallic liquid seemed to be floating in midair. The droplet appeared and disappeared in the robotic red blinking of a digital LED descending resolutely, making the technician's skin crawl. â€Å"Can you lighten the contrast?† the commander asked, startling the technician. The technician heeded the instruction, and the image lightened somewhat. The commander leaned forward, squinting closer at something that had just come visible on the base of the container. The technician followed his commander's gaze. Ever so faintly, printed next to the LED was an acronym. Four capital letters gleaming in the intermittent spurts of light. â€Å"Stay here,† the commander said. â€Å"Say nothing. I'll handle this.† 25 Haz-Mat. Fifty meters below ground. Vittoria Vetra stumbled forward, almost falling into the retina scan. She sensed the American rushing to help her, holding her, supporting her weight. On the floor at her feet, her father's eyeball stared up. She felt the air crushed from her lungs. They cut out his eye! Her world twisted. Kohler pressed close behind, speaking. Langdon guided her. As if in a dream, she found herself gazing into the retina scan. The mechanism beeped. The door slid open. Even with the terror of her father's eye boring into her soul, Vittoria sensed an additional horror awaited inside. When she leveled her blurry gaze into the room, she confirmed the next chapter of the nightmare. Before her, the solitary recharging podium was empty. The canister was gone. They had cut out her father's eye to steal it. The implications came too fast for her to fully comprehend. Everything had backfired. The specimen that was supposed to prove antimatter was a safe and viable energy source had been stolen. But nobody knew this specimen even existed! The truth, however, was undeniable. Someone had found out. Vittoria could not imagine who. Even Kohler, whom they said knew everything at CERN, clearly had no idea about the project. Her father was dead. Murdered for his genius. As the grief strafed her heart, a new emotion surged into Vittoria's conscious. This one was far worse. Crushing. Stabbing at her. The emotion was guilt. Uncontrollable, relentless guilt. Vittoria knew it had been she who convinced her father to create the specimen. Against his better judgment. And he had been killed for it. A quarter of a gram†¦ Like any technology – fire, gunpowder, the combustion engine – in the wrong hands, antimatter could be deadly. Very deadly. Antimatter was a lethal weapon. Potent, and unstoppable. Once removed from its recharging platform at CERN, the canister would count down inexorably. A runaway train. And when time ran out†¦ A blinding light. The roar of thunder. Spontaneous incineration. Just the flash†¦ and an empty crater. A big empty crater. The image of her father's quiet genius being used as a tool of destruction was like poison in her blood. Antimatter was the ultimate terrorist weapon. It had no metallic parts to trip metal detectors, no chemical signature for dogs to trace, no fuse to deactivate if the authorities located the canister. The countdown had begun†¦ Langdon didn't know what else to do. He took his handkerchief and lay it on the floor over Leonardo Vetra's eyeball. Vittoria was standing now in the doorway of the empty Haz-Mat chamber, her expression wrought with grief and panic. Langdon moved toward her again, instinctively, but Kohler intervened. â€Å"Mr. Langdon?† Kohler's face was expressionless. He motioned Langdon out of earshot. Langdon reluctantly followed, leaving Vittoria to fend for herself. â€Å"You're the specialist,† Kohler said, his whisper intense. â€Å"I want to know what these Illuminati bastards intend to do with this antimatter.† Langdon tried to focus. Despite the madness around him, his first reaction was logical. Academic rejection. Kohler was still making assumptions. Impossible assumptions. â€Å"The Illuminati are defunct, Mr. Kohler. I stand by that. This crime could be anything – maybe even another CERN employee who found out about Mr. Vetra's breakthrough and thought the project was too dangerous to continue.† Kohler looked stunned. â€Å"You think this is a crime of conscience, Mr. Langdon? Absurd. Whoever killed Leonardo wanted one thing – the antimatter specimen. And no doubt they have plans for it.† â€Å"You mean terrorism.† â€Å"Plainly.† â€Å"But the Illuminati were not terrorists.† â€Å"Tell that to Leonardo Vetra.† Langdon felt a pang of truth in the statement. Leonardo Vetra had indeed been branded with the Illuminati symbol. Where had it come from? The sacred brand seemed too difficult a hoax for someone trying to cover his tracks by casting suspicion elsewhere. There had to be another explanation. Again, Langdon forced himself to consider the implausible. If the Illuminati were still active, and if they stole the antimatter, what would be their intention? What would be their target? The answer furnished by his brain was instantaneous. Langdon dismissed it just as fast. True, the Illuminati had an obvious enemy, but a wide-scale terrorist attack against that enemy was inconceivable. It was entirely out of character. Yes, the Illuminati had killed people, but individuals, carefully conscripted targets. Mass destruction was somehow heavy-handed. Langdon paused. Then again, he thought, there would be a rather majestic eloquence to it – antimatter, the ultimate scientific achievement, being used to vaporize – He refused to accept the preposterous thought. â€Å"There is,† he said suddenly, â€Å"a logical explanation other than terrorism.† Kohler stared, obviously waiting. Langdon tried to sort out the thought. The Illuminati had always wielded tremendous power through financial means. They controlled banks. They owned gold bullion. They were even rumored to possess the single most valuable gem on earth – the Illuminati Diamond, a flawless diamond of enormous proportions. â€Å"Money,† Langdon said. â€Å"The antimatter could have been stolen for financial gain.† Kohler looked incredulous. â€Å"Financial gain? Where does one sell a droplet of antimatter?† â€Å"Not the specimen,† Langdon countered. â€Å"The technology. Antimatter technology must be worth a mint. Maybe someone stole the specimen to do analysis and R and D.† â€Å"Industrial espionage? But that canister has twenty-four hours before the batteries die. The researchers would blow themselves up before they learned anything at all.† â€Å"They could recharge it before it explodes. They could build a compatible recharging podium like the ones here at CERN.† â€Å"In twenty-four hours?† Kohler challenged. â€Å"Even if they stole the schematics, a recharger like that would take months to engineer, not hours!† â€Å"He's right.† Vittoria's voice was frail. Both men turned. Vittoria was moving toward them, her gait as tremulous as her words. â€Å"He's right. Nobody could reverse engineer a recharger in time. The interface alone would take weeks. Flux filters, servo-coils, power conditioning alloys, all calibrated to the specific energy grade of the locale.† Langdon frowned. The point was taken. An antimatter trap was not something one could simply plug into a wall socket. Once removed from CERN, the canister was on a one-way, twenty-four-hour trip to oblivion. Which left only one, very disturbing, conclusion. â€Å"We need to call Interpol,† Vittoria said. Even to herself, her voice sounded distant. â€Å"We need to call the proper authorities. Immediately.† Kohler shook his head. â€Å"Absolutely not.† The words stunned her. â€Å"No? What do you mean?† â€Å"You and your father have put me in a very difficult position here.† â€Å"Director, we need help. We need to find that trap and get it back here before someone gets hurt. We have a responsibility!† â€Å"We have a responsibility to think,† Kohler said, his tone hardening. â€Å"This situation could have very, very serious repercussions for CERN.† â€Å"You're worried about CERN's reputation? Do you know what that canister could do to an urban area? It has a blast radius of a half mile! Nine city blocks!† â€Å"Perhaps you and your father should have considered that before you created the specimen.† Vittoria felt like she'd been stabbed. â€Å"But†¦ we took every precaution.† â€Å"Apparently, it was not enough.† â€Å"But nobody knew about the antimatter.† She realized, of course, it was an absurd argument. Of course somebody knew. Someone had found out. Vittoria had told no one. That left only two explanations. Either her father had taken someone into his confidence without telling her, which made no sense because it was her father who had sworn them both to secrecy, or she and her father had been monitored. The cell phone maybe? She knew they had spoken a few times while Vittoria was traveling. Had they said too much? It was possible. There was also their E-mail. But they had been discreet, hadn't they? CERN's security system? Had they been monitored somehow without their knowledge? She knew none of that mattered anymore. What was done, was done. My father is dead. The thought spurred her to action. She pulled her cell phone from her shorts pocket. Kohler accelerated toward her, coughing violently, eyes flashing anger. â€Å"Who†¦ are you calling?† â€Å"CERN's switchboard. They can connect us to Interpol.† â€Å"Think!† Kohler choked, screeching to a halt in front of her. â€Å"Are you really so naive? That canister could be anywhere in the world by now. No intelligence agency on earth could possibly mobilize to find it in time.† â€Å"So we do nothing?† Vittoria felt compunction challenging a man in such frail health, but the director was so far out of line she didn't even know him anymore. â€Å"We do what is smart,† Kohler said. â€Å"We don't risk CERN's reputation by involving authorities who cannot help anyway. Not yet. Not without thinking.† Vittoria knew there was logic somewhere in Kohler's argument, but she also knew that logic, by definition, was bereft of moral responsibility. Her father had lived for moral responsibility – careful science, accountability, faith in man's inherent goodness. Vittoria believed in those things too, but she saw them in terms of karma. Turning away from Kohler, she snapped open her phone. â€Å"You can't do that,† he said. â€Å"Just try and stop me.† Kohler did not move. An instant later, Vittoria realized why. This far underground, her cell phone had no dial tone. Fuming, she headed for the elevator. 26 The Hassassin stood at the end of the stone tunnel. His torch still burned bright, the smoke mixing with the smell of moss and stale air. Silence surrounded him. The iron door blocking his way looked as old as the tunnel itself, rusted but still holding strong. He waited in the darkness, trusting. It was almost time. Janus had promised someone on the inside would open the door. The Hassassin marveled at the betrayal. He would have waited all night at that door to carry out his task, but he sensed it would not be necessary. He was working for determined men. Minutes later, exactly at the appointed hour, there was a loud clank of heavy keys on the other side of the door. Metal scraped on metal as multiple locks disengaged. One by one, three huge deadbolts ground open. The locks creaked as if they had not been used in centuries. Finally all three were open. Then there was silence. The Hassassin waited patiently, five minutes, exactly as he had been told. Then, with electricity in his blood, he pushed. The great door swung open. 27 â€Å"Vittoria, I will not allow it!† Kohler's breath was labored and getting worse as the Haz-Mat elevator ascended. Vittoria blocked him out. She craved sanctuary, something familiar in this place that no longer felt like home. She knew it was not to be. Right now, she had to swallow the pain and act. Get to a phone. Robert Langdon was beside her, silent as usual. Vittoria had given up wondering who the man was. A specialist? Could Kohler be any less specific? Mr. Langdon can help us find your father's killer. Langdon was being no help at all. His warmth and kindness seemed genuine, but he was clearly hiding something. They both were. Kohler was at her again. â€Å"As director of CERN, I have a responsibility to the future of science. If you amplify this into an international incident and CERN suffers – â€Å" â€Å"Future of science?† Vittoria turned on him. â€Å"Do you really plan to escape accountability by never admitting this antimatter came from CERN? Do you plan to ignore the people's lives we've put in danger?† â€Å"Not we,† Kohler countered. â€Å"You. You and your father.† Vittoria looked away. â€Å"And as far as endangering lives,† Kohler said, â€Å"life is exactly what this is about. You know antimatter technology has enormous implications for life on this planet. If CERN goes bankrupt, destroyed by scandal, everybody loses. Man's future is in the hands of places like CERN, scientists like you and your father, working to solve tomorrow's problems.† Vittoria had heard Kohler's Science-as-God lecture before, and she never bought it. Science itself caused half the problems it was trying to solve. â€Å"Progress† was Mother Earth's ultimate malignancy. â€Å"Scientific advancement carries risk,† Kohler argued. â€Å"It always has. Space programs, genetic research, medicine – they all make mistakes. Science needs to survive its own blunders, at any cost. For everyone's sake.† Vittoria was amazed at Kohler's ability to weigh moral issues with scientific detachment. His intellect seemed to be the product of an icy divorce from his inner spirit. â€Å"You think CERN is so critical to the earth's future that we should be immune from moral responsibility?† â€Å"Do not argue morals with me. You crossed a line when you made that specimen, and you have put this entire facility at risk. I'm trying to protect not only the jobs of the three thousand scientists who work here, but also your father's reputation. Think about him. A man like your father does not deserve to be remembered as the creator of a weapon of mass destruction.† Vittoria felt his spear hit home. I am the one who convinced my father to create that specimen. This is my fault! When the door opened, Kohler was still talking. Vittoria stepped out of the elevator, pulled out her phone, and tried again. Still no dial tone. Damn! She headed for the door. â€Å"Vittoria, stop.† The director sounded asthmatic now, as he accelerated after her. â€Å"Slow down. We need to talk.† â€Å"Basta di parlare!† â€Å"Think of your father,† Kohler urged. â€Å"What would he do?† She kept going. â€Å"Vittoria, I haven't been totally honest with you.† Vittoria felt her legs slow. â€Å"I don't know what I was thinking,† Kohler said. â€Å"I was just trying to protect you. Just tell me what you want. We need to work together here.† Vittoria came to a full stop halfway across the lab, but she did not turn. â€Å"I want to find the antimatter. And I want to know who killed my father.† She waited. Kohler sighed. â€Å"Vittoria, we already know who killed your father. I'm sorry.† Now Vittoria turned. â€Å"You what?† â€Å"I didn't know how to tell you. It's a difficult – â€Å" â€Å"You know who killed my father?† â€Å"We have a very good idea, yes. The killer left somewhat of a calling card. That's the reason I called Mr. Langdon. The group claiming responsibility is his specialty.† â€Å"The group? A terrorist group?† â€Å"Vittoria, they stole a quarter gram of antimatter.† Vittoria looked at Robert Langdon standing there across the room. Everything began falling into place. That explains some of the secrecy. She was amazed it hadn't occurred to her earlier. Kohler had called the authorities after all. The authorities. Now it seemed obvious. Robert Langdon was American, clean-cut, conservative, obviously very sharp. Who else could it be? Vittoria should have guessed from the start. She felt a newfound hope as she turned to him. â€Å"Mr. Langdon, I want to know who killed my father. And I want to know if your agency can find the antimatter.† Langdon looked flustered. â€Å"My agency?† â€Å"You're with U.S. Intelligence, I assume.† â€Å"Actually†¦ no.† Kohler intervened. â€Å"Mr. Langdon is a professor of art history at Harvard University.† Vittoria felt like she had been doused with ice water. â€Å"An art teacher?† â€Å"He is a specialist in cult symbology.† Kohler sighed. â€Å"Vittoria, we believe your father was killed by a satanic cult.† Vittoria heard the words in her mind, but she was unable to process them. A satanic cult. â€Å"The group claiming responsibility calls themselves the Illuminati.† Vittoria looked at Kohler and then at Langdon, wondering if this was some kind of perverse joke. â€Å"The Illuminati?† she demanded. â€Å"As in the Bavarian Illuminati?† Kohler looked stunned. â€Å"You've heard of them?† Vittoria felt the tears of frustration welling right below the surface. â€Å"Bavarian Illuminati: New World Order. Steve Jackson computer games. Half the techies here play it on the Internet.† Her voice cracked. â€Å"But I don't understand†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Kohler shot Langdon a confused look. Langdon nodded. â€Å"Popular game. Ancient brotherhood takes over the world. Semihistorical. I didn't know it was in Europe too.† Vittoria was bewildered. â€Å"What are you talking about? The Illuminati? It's a computer game!† â€Å"Vittoria,† Kohler said, â€Å"the Illuminati is the group claiming responsibility for your father's death.† Vittoria mustered every bit of courage she could find to fight the tears. She forced herself to hold on and assess the situation logically. But the harder she focused, the less she understood. Her father had been murdered. CERN had suffered a major breach of security. There was a bomb counting down somewhere that she was responsible for. And the director had nominated an art teacher to help them find a mythical fraternity of Satanists. Vittoria felt suddenly all alone. She turned to go, but Kohler cut her off. He reached for something in his pocket. He produced a crumpled piece of fax paper and handed it to her. Vittoria swayed in horror as her eyes hit the image. â€Å"They branded him,† Kohler said. â€Å"They branded his goddamn chest.†