The Perfect Knight Essay Example for Free

The Perfect Knight Essay We are made to believe that there are still knights in shining armor out there. That adage was probably rooted from English Literature. Stories of King Arthur and his knights were legendary that it even reached our time. It influences us on how the modern man should act towards the contemporary woman. But what are the characteristics of the perfect knight? How should he feel about love? How does he handle the honor bestowed on him by his king? Was there such a thing as a perfect knight then? The perfect knight being the counterpart of the perfect gentleman of today. We can discuss this by studying four knights: Sir Gawain from the Arthurian stories, Sir Topas from Geoffrey Chaucer’s â€Å"Tale of Sir Topas† and Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon in â€Å"The Knight’s Tale†, also by Chaucer. Sir Gawain is the nephew of King Arthur. He is also a Knight of the Round Table. He is said to be the greatest knights. He is the daughter of King Arthur’s sister Morgause and King Lot of Orkney and Lothian. Gawain is often described as a great warrior. He is formidable but he can be brash. He is very loyal to his king and his family. He is friendly to the younger knights. He defends the poor. He is quite the ladies’ man. He is a great healer because he acquires vast knowledge of herbs. If Gawain’s story were made into a movie, there would be versions wherein he is the hero and there would be other versions where he is the best friend of the hero. There are even some stories where he is the provider of the gentle comedy. However, if a reader who is studying Sir Gawain wants to see him in the best possible light, the best literature would be his search for the holy grail. On his quest, his intentions are pure. However, he is only human. He failed to use God’s grace to see his mistakes. In the Arthurian legends, he stopped his brothers Agravain and Mordred from exposing the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere. When Guinevere was sentenced to be burned at the stake. Gawain nobly refused to be deployed in guarding the execution. His loyalty to his friend Lancelot ended when his brothers were killed in the battle between the knight and King Arthur. Their friendship turned into hatred. However, when he was mortally wounded in the battle against Mordred’s armies, Gawain apologized to Lancelot for his actions. He asked for his help to defeat Mordred. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s â€Å"The Canterbury Tales† there is a story entitled â€Å"Sir Topas. † It is about a handsome and young knight who is a hunter, archer and wrestler. Every maiden wants to be loved by him but he’s not interested. He rests beside a watering place where he dreams of an Elf Queen. When he awakes, he is determined to find her. He meets a three-headed giant who challenges him in a battle. He accepts it. He goes home, enjoys a feast and prepares for the battle with his finest weapons and excellent armor. Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon, also from Chaucer’s â€Å"The Canterbury Tales† are good friends. They were imprisoned by Theseus, the Duke of Athens. While they were there, they both fell in love with Emily, the sister of Duchess Hippolyta. After Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon both saw Emily, they fell madly in love with her which brewed up a competition between them. Their love for the same woman resulted to their despise of one another.. They were eventually released from the prison. Both Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon tried their best to win Emily’s love in whichever way necessary. They almost killed each other during the process. This is where Theseus stepped in. He arranged a battle for Emily. Palamon prayed for Emily to be his wife, Emily prayed that she married the one who really loved her and Arcite prayed for victory. All prayers were answered. Arcite won the tournament but died before he could marry Emily. Therefore, Palamon married her. All through out the introductions presented in the paper, the views on courtly love and ethical dilemmas can be seen. First off, Sir Gawain. As a knight, he was true to his word. He pleged allegiance to his king (which he did) and to his country (which he also did. ) However, his ethical dilemma was with Guinevere. When he was asked to be on guard as she burned at the stake, he couldn’t do it. As a knight, he respected women. He chose to be true to this promise rather than obey his king’s command. He was a loyal subject to Arthur and a loyal friend to Lancelot. It would have been the case had not his brothers been killed in the battle. That was when he turned against Lancelot. Again, we see an ethical dilemma in Sir Gawain. This time, he chose family over his duties as a knight. He wanted to avenge the death of his brothers. His final ethical dilemma was plotting against his brother Mordred. Camelot was in danger. The only way for Sir Gawain to save his kingdom was to ask Lancelot to kill Mordred. In his remaining hours, he was loyal to his country and kept his honor as a knight. Meanwhile Sir Topas reflects courtly love. He also mirrors the contemporary man which is the hunter. Men prefer to do the pursuing and the courting. Sir Topas had a liege of women pining over him but he ignored every one of them. He sought out the Elf Queen instead. The Elf Queen represents the girl of his dreams. Finally, Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon, like Sir Topas, also show what men of today are when it comes to courtly love. They will do anything to get the heart of the lady they desire. Even today, we hear stories, be it real or in movies, of men who used to be friends but became enemies because they were after the same girl. This only comes to show that Sir Gawain, Sir Topas, Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon view honor and love as motivations behind their actions. Some of the traits reflected in their stories can be seen in the contemporary man. One can therefore say that when a man is a gentlemen, he can pretty much be the perfect knight. The contemporary man, like Sir Gawain, is loyal to his country and to his duties. He respects women and makes sure that they are taken care of. He, like Sir Topas, prefers to be the one doing the chasing, instead of the other way around. True that some guys like aggressive girls but in the end, these girls will not be taken seriously. They will not be respected like that of those girls who were pursued by the men themselves. As for today’s men being like Sir Arcite and Sir Palamon when it comes to falling for the same girl, there are exceptions. Some men give way. They let the other guy have the girl in order for the friendship to not get affected. This is a reflection of honor today. Perhaps there are still knights in shining armor. Men who will put ladies first before themselves. Men who are true to their word and to the promises they made. Men who can be brash at times because of their emotions but will eventually maintain their composure once their logical reasoning kicks in. Honor and love are two qualities every knight take seriously. They pride being honorable and loving to their duties, their country, their families and their women. That is exactly what the modern man is.

A Rhythmic History of Hip-Hop Essay -- Hip Hop Music Beat Essays

A Rhythmic History of Hip-Hop Hip-hop, which originally began more than 20 years ago, has undergone many changes during its lifetime. The music has always remained centered in urban landscapes, with most performers of the music rising up from the inner-city neighborhoods. Throughout its history, hip-hop has centered on the rhythm of the beat rather than the melody, which shows the connection between modern hip-hop and traditional African tribal music, often featuring complex polyrhythms and little to no melody. Hip-hop has also featured heavy bass sounds through out its history, with the rhythms hitting the second and fourth beat of each measure hard with either a heavy bass drum or a bass guitar. Hip-hop beats have evolved in many different ways throughout their twenty-year history, yet they are all centered around rhythm and feature heavy, syncopated bass. For my field report, I chose to compose a number of different hip-hop beats, each one emulating a different style of beat from the history of hip-hop. I composed five different beats. The first is an emulation of a beat from the mid-eighties, the second is based on a gangster rap beat from the west coast during the early nineties, the third is based on a beat from New York City during the early nineties, the fourth based on a beat from the south during the late nineties, and the fifth is based on a beat from New York City during the late nineties. For two of the beats I used samples, which is a common practice in the construction of hip-hop beats. The other beats are all originals, yet they are not as long in length as those that contain samples. The first beat is one that is based on the song . South Bronx. by Boogie Down Productions, which was released in 198... ...t, and it does have a sad and reflective tone to it. My song features a sample from the song "Ballad of the Thin Man" by Bob Dylan. The beat is still repetitive, which has proven to be the one constant between all the beats that I chose to emulate. Most of my beats succeeded in trying to capture the feeling of a different time and a different area in music. As is evident by the difference in the beats that came out of New York, Los Angeles, and the South, whatever area the beat comes from has an influence on how those beats will sound. The time from which a beat came also has an influence on how it sounds, with the old school beats sounding quite different from the modern beats. While hip-hop beats have progressed and changed over time, there have also been constants, such as repetition and rhythmic complexity, that remain as similarities between all the beats.

Denis McDonough

â€Å"What Barack has said is that we can begin withdrawing our troops immediately, and he believes that we can do it at pace of about one to two combat brigades per month. And at that pace, we could get the remaining troops out in about 16 months. This is not an ironclad absolute commitment that at the end of 16 months all of our troops will be out. But he does believe that is the kind of pace that we can do responsibly and safely. † (Interview with NPR, June 2008. ) McDonough has argued for a common-good approach to foreign policy, saying that the U. S. must address problems like global warming and poverty by taking approaches that will benefit other countries as well as the United States. He has spoken in support of a cap-and-trade system and called on the U. S. to make a serious commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. (6) Iraq McDonough opposed the Iraq war from the start and backs Obama’s efforts to withdraw troops slowly from the country, aiming to have all of th em out in about 16 months. He argues that Congress and the president failed to plan for the long-term impact of the Iraq war. He would like Obama’s administration to craft a thorough proposal that lays out what the U. S. ’s specific role will be in Iraq over the next ten years. (7) Intelligence Oversight While at the Center for American Progress, McDonough lobbied for reform of Congressional oversight of intelligence. He argued that Congress must pursue vigorous oversight of the 17 agencies because they operate in such secrecy, ensuring that the intelligence community is behaving constitutionally and lawfully while pursuing their aims effectively. (8) Samantha Power. Q: Though some analysts see U. S. foreign policy woes as a recent phenomenon, you argue that recent foreign policy missteps by current U. S. leaders have exposed and exacerbated long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U. S. foreign policy. Please explain. Power: It is tempting to see Iraq as the source of all our woes now, whereas I see Iraq as the symptom, in some measure, of a number of longstanding trends and defects in American foreign policy. March,6,2008 One example is the US historic predisposition to go it alone. Because we have long undervalued what international institutions have to offer, we believed that we could go into Iraq, and as soon as we declared the mission accomplished, we expected to be able to turn the problem over to others, regardless of how they had been treated in the run up to the invasion. This thinking is very flawed, but not all that new. In a uni-polar world, the Clinton Administration was able to get away with an instrumental relationship with international institutions, but that is harder with the rise of new powers who are willing to challenge the United States in international bodies. It is also harder now that the Iraq war itself has exposed so many US weaknesses. In addition, we long saw international authorization as a luxury, something good for global public opinion, but not very relevant to US national security. But what we have seen, by revealing our indifference to international legitimacy both in the Iraq war and in the practices carried out in our counter-terrorism efforts – the disavowal of the Geneva conventions, prisoner abuse, extraordinary rendition, etc. is that being seen to thumb our nose at international law actually has profound security ramifications, as more and more people seek to take up arms against U. S. citizens and interests. Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the ‘national interest' as a whole is defined and pursued. Look at the degree to which Halliburton and several of the private security and contracting firms invested in the 2004 political campaigns and received very lucrative contracts in the aftermath of the U. S. takeover of Iraq. Also, America's important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive. So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests – especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace – seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq. Q: Elaborate on your differentiation between ‘power' and ‘influence' as accurate metrics for conceptualizing effective foreign policy. Power: I think that most of us, in a knee-jerk way, tend to conflate power with ‘hard power' – with economic and military power. At the Kennedy School, Joe Nye gave us the concept of ‘soft power' as another component of power. Building on Nye's concept, we would be wise in the 21st century to measure our power by our influence. Influence is best measured not only by military hardware and GDP, but also by other people's perceptions that we, the United States, are using our power legitimately. That belief – that we are acting in the interests of the global commons and in accordance with the rule of law – is what the military would call a ‘force multiplier. ‘ It enhances the U. S. ability to get what it wants from other countries and other players. The third component of influence – along with traditional hard power and legitimacy – is people's perception that we know what we are doing, that we are competent. Here, one cannot overstate the devastating one-two punch of Iraq and Katrina in undermining the global public's and the American people's faith that the U. S. is a competent prosecutor of its own objectives. Even if you disagreed with the Bush administration's decision to go to war, and thought it would do more harm than good, many people assumed that this administration, in pursuing this war, would at least know what it was doing. Whatever its objectives were – again, objectives many of us found suspect or insufficient to warrant the use of military force – we expected this group of experienced professionals to pursue those aims competently, to prepare properly, and to bring adequate resources to bear. We all know now that experience does not translate into competence. The war in Iraq has thus undermined our hard power by overstretching our military and sending us into deficit. It has undermined our perceived legitimacy because we've ignored the will of the international community and committed grave acts of torture, crimes against humanity, and other terrible sins in the conduct of the war itself. But, crucially, as my colleague Steve Walt has put it, we also no longer look like the country that put the man on the moon. Nor does the rest of the world see us, currently, as the country that liberated Europe from two world wars, that devised the Marshall Plan, that helped bring down the Wall. As a result, our ability to get what we want – whether we're talking about ending Iran‘s nuclear enrichment program, halting genocide in Darfur, reforming the UN, or even securing international buy-in for the effort to stabilize Iraq – our influence has eroded such that we are unable to actually achieve our policy objectives Q: You see the U. S. as being more isolated today than it has ever been. Though there have always been ‘America-firsters' among policy makers, why do you think this is especially dangerous now? Power: Traditionally, American isolationism comes about in spurts as the result of very vocal domestic constituencies who believe that engagement with the rest of the world is bad for U. S. interests. Although today there are some in this country who would like to see the United States ‘come home' after its bungled misadventures abroad, most Americans understand that the nature of the global marketplace, as well as the global threats, make this impossible. Yet we are in a period of relative isolation – one that stems less from ascendant Copperhead isolationism at home and more from the way other countries calculate their interests as they relate to the United States. So, in a sense, those countries are retreating from the United States, rather than the United States retreating from them. It's the reverse of what we have seen in the past. What you have are a number of countries -even those with which the United States has long been aligned – who believe that a very close association between themselves and the Bush administration undermines their internal domestic standing. So we see longstanding allies of the United States pushing back against Washington, asserting independent views on everything from global warming and international justice to troubled war zones like Afghanistan, where the U. S. desperately needs the support of its western partners in attempting to stabilize that country. So we are the recipients of isolationism now, you might say, rather than the crafters of it. Q: The focus in discussions of U. S. foreign policy is often on the executive branch, but you place great responsibility on Congress and journalists, and even the public, in relation to U. S. foreign policy. Why? Power: The longstanding habit of governments is to pursue their national interests – to pursue their economic and security interests. That is what governments are for. That is what states are for. The only occasions in which regard for human rights and human consequences are injected into foreign policymaking historically are occasions when the Congress has in sisted upon it or when the press has either shamed the Congress or shamed the Executive Branch into entertaining a broader set of interests which include regard for human consequences abroad. The reason this becomes especially important in the 21st century – in an era of asymmetric threats- is because our systematic neglect of human rights in the formulation of our foreign policy over the years has engendered great resentment. Our abuses in the conduct of the so-called ‘war on terror,' too, have enhanced terrorist recruitment, fueled vitriolic anti-Americanism and, arguably, made it more difficult for us to summon resources from other countries to deal with threats. Human rights abuses have supplied oxygen to the minority of those who hold the United States in such contempt that they want to take matters into their own hands and kill Americans. It's very important, for our national security in the long term, and of course on principle, that human consequences be integrated into our foreign policy, but it's very unlikely historically that this will be done in a top-down fashion. So if the American people or particular constituencies care about particular issues – say Afghanistan, Guantanamo, or Darfur – unless they actually give voice to that concern, whether for its own sake or because they believe that those crises will come back and haunt the United States if they are not dealt with, the only way that the public is going to see their interests in those issues internalized by senior policy makers is if they make it vocally and painfully clear to policy makers that there is a strong domestic political constituency for a change in course. Q: You posit that both the self-image and global image of the U. S. have eroded. How can the U. S. again be seen as a force for good in the world? Power: It's probably going to be a long and windy road to rehabilitation. A crucial step for the United States is to really begin to think in terms of ‘do no harm' and actually ending some of the more egregious aspects of its approach to counter-terrorism. First, in the ‘do no harm' camp: end the practice of extraordinary rendition, where US agents willfully ship terrorist suspects in our custody to countries that we know torture, for the explicit purpose of evading domestic checks on US abuse. Second in the ‘do no harm' camp: close Guantanamo and actually channel its prisoners through internationally respected legal processes. And third, restore habeus corpus to those detainees who are in US custody. To strip a group of individuals – no matter what blood some number of them have on their hands – of the most fundamental constitutional rights sends a signal to the rest of the world that there are two sets of human rights that we believe in: one robust set that Americans get to enjoy, and another much diminished set that those perceived as hostile to us get to enjoy. There are also two sets of individuals – ‘tortureables' and ‘untorturables. ‘ So a first step in our rehabilitation is to rid our conduct of these colossal blemishes on the American character. The second is embedding U. S. antipoverty, anti-disease and democratization policy initiatives within international institutions as part of a grand vision of what the United States actually does stand for – which is trying to ensure that people enjoy the kind of freedom from fear and freedom from want that Franklin Roosevelt promised Americans many years ago. The burden of actually making people secure in their homes is far too steep a burden for one country to handle. We must articulate a vision for human security and then channel US resources through international institutions, which themselves must become more rigorous and accountable. This will over time enhance US standing, but more importantly, it will force other countries – who have delighted in Bush's misfortunes but put little on the line themselves to patrol the global commons – to pick up the slack. Introduction Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) foreign policy agenda has emphasized multilateralism and reinvigorated diplomacy to advance U. S. interests. He has pledged to take steps to end the war in Iraq soon after taking office, to negotiate with the leadership of U. S. adversaries like Iran and Cuba, and to revamp the U. S. approach to free trade to bolster labor and environmental protections. Obama has attracted as advisers a number of top foreign policy experts who served under President Bill Clinton. Those advisers tend to be more independent from party orthodoxy on foreign policy issues, analysts say. Obama's top advisers were opposed to the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, although a number of prominent Democrats, including rival Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), supported the action at the time. Obama's advisers generally appear to agree with his belief that it is â€Å"important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies. A New Foreign Policy Vision Obama was elected to the Senate in 2005 and serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. Prior to that, his professional experience was primarily confined to Illinois, where he served as a state legislator representing a Chicago district, and before that, a community activist. He has cited his personal background-his Kenyan-born father and a youth spent in Indonesia-as crucial to the development of his world view. Like other presidential campaigns, Obama's draws on a long list of advisers on foreign policy matters. The most senior include several ranking Clinton administration officials, the Brookings Institution's Susan E. Rice, former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. This is a team that's very reflective of Obama, who has made it pretty clear in his speeches and statements during the campaign that he believes that diplomacy has been undervalued over the past few years and that the United States shouldn't fear to negotiate,† says Derek Chollet, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security who advised Jo hn Edwards' presidential campaign. If Obama wins the general election in November, his foreign policy and economic agendas will surely break with the legacies of the Bush administration, experts say. Whether it's our approach to torture, or climate change, or how we're dealing with Iran, to Iraq, to the Middle East peace process you're going to see significant changes,† says Chollet, who is not connected to the Obama campaign. Obama advocates a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, and has said the United States should invest $150 billion over ten years to advance clean-energy technology. Obama has also been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, which he opposed from its outset in 2002. He has said he will withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus U. S. military efforts against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. National Security Advisers Obama has stressed his commitment to winning the battle against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. He has also vowed that he would pursue al-Qaeda elements into Pakistan, with or without government permission, if he had strong intelligence the group was planning an attack on the United States. Obama's leading national security advisers include: Denis McDonough , senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the national security coordinator for Obama's campaign. McDonough was foreign policy adviser to former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. McDonough has been outspoken on energy and environmental policy. In June 2007, McDonough urged the Group of Eight (G8) to take action to combat climate change, and warned that current levels of development assistance are â€Å"woefully insufficient† to help underdeveloped nations deal with climate change. McDonough has also said that the United States should do more to â€Å"promote the development of our domestic clean energy sector industry. † McDonough said on a Brookings Institution panel in May 2007 that it is â€Å"far past time† for the United States to institute a cap-and-trade system mandating â€Å"very aggressive reductions† in greenhouse gases, with the goal of an 80 percent reduction over 1990 levels by 2050

Driving Practice Makes Perfect

Driving Practice Makes Perfect? Five years ago I decided to get my driving license: I enrolled on a course at a driving school, spent two months learning the traffic rules and a month driving, passed my driving test and in less than a month got into a car accident. It was not exactly my fault, but I was definitely not experienced enough to maneuver successfully in a busy rush hour traffic. Could this accident have been prevented? For sure. The easiest way to ensure road safety is to teach young drivers something more than a superficial idea of what driving is. A safety driving education course must provide an opportunity to drive with an instructor for not less than a year. On the one hand, this will ensure learners get enough support from the instructor who can reveal certain secrets of driving. On the other hand, they will get a wonderful opportunity to practice driving in different weather conditions, which is crucial if we consider the fact that more than a half accidents happen due to rain, snow or ice. Moreover, such a course usually includes intensive practice on a training ground, when a learner can see what happens to a car in case of emergency braking, try controlled skidding and get the idea of the differences in rear and front steering. This means that in real life he or she will react faster and is likely to avoid the accident. In addition, a large part of any safety driving course is devoted to the safety measures that any driver must observe. So, one can watch the documentaries on why it is of utmost importance to use safety belts, child seats and hands-free mobile devices. Having seen the consequences of violating the safety rules, young drivers are sure to become more responsible. In my opinion, a safe driving education course is a simple, yet effective and reliable method to reduce the number of car accidents, which all young drivers are likely to benefit from.