Economics - Economic Policy - Discuss and critically evaluate the Essay - 1

Economics - Economic Policy - Discuss and critically evaluate the rescue and stimulation packages by the UK Government since the start of the credit crunch in 2007 - Essay Example It is in this backdrop, we analyze the factors leading to the crisis and the efficacy of the rescue and stimulation packages introduced by the UK government to improve the situation. According to the Banking Guide it has been an episode of financial instability that was, arguably, the most serious since the 1930s. It states â€Å"The risks of negative equity (where mortgages are greater than the value of the property) became a reality and mortgage defaults hit record highs. Banks have lost the trust which is a pre-requisite to the efficient functioning of credit markets†. The table as given in Appendix I shows the fall in the world’s major equity markets since June 2007, and the cumulative change from 30-6-2007 to 10-10-2008 in the case of ‘FTSE All-share Index’ of the UK is negative by 40.9%. The habit of borrowing by the individuals and corporate bodies ingrained predominantly in the US culture at a staggering level which over the period of time made the financial structure in the country vulnerable. As a lighted  match to a  train of gunpowder, the subprime crisis acted as a trigger for the collapse of the leading banks. The cases of isolated bad debt in the banking system could be a normal phenomenon. However, when it has become impossible to quantify the bad debts in the nation as a whole, the system became victim to the crisis. This unprecedented phenomenon has arrested the flow of capital and liquidity, fundamental to the banking system. It is a vicious circle and the banking system has been clogged up completely due to growing suspicion among the market players. The bank finance locked up in subprime mortgages and housing development projects has paralyzed the system as a whole. The bailout plan was formulated under the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, who h ad been the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs earlier.

The Character of Achilles Essay Example for Free

The Character of Achilles Essay Achilles is the main character in Homer’s The Iliad translated by Robert Fagles. The Iliad is the story of the battle of Troy, in which Greek heroes fight and die, with much interference from the various gods and goddesses. The story ends when Achilles gives Hector’s body back to King Priam and Hector is buried. Homer uses a number of different literary devices to illustrate Achilles’ character development, such as his actions, what other characters say about him, and his appearance. Throughout this epic poem, Achilles must deal with his conflict of free will versus fate. Achilles’ first encounter with his ongoing conflict occurs in Book 1 when he is deciding whether or not to kill Agamemnon for insulting him (84). Athena almost immediately arrives and says, â€Å"Down from the skies I come to check your rage if only you will yield,† thus implying that Achilles has a choice (84). He can either obey Athena’s orders and earn more treasures in the end or he can go against her orders and suffer the consequences. In the end, Achilles determines that it’s not a smart idea to go against godly orders and submits. Other characters do not have choices like Achilles does. In Book 3, Aphrodite rescues Paris from Menelaus and puts him in the bedroom. Then she goes to Helen and orders her to go to bed with Paris. When Helen protests, Aphrodite becomes irritated and threatens her. This shows that Helen doesn’t have a choice, nor do the other characters, with the exception of Achilles. Also, in Book 20, Zeus says, â€Å"If Achilles fights the Trojans—unopposed by us—not for a moment will they hold his breakneck force. Even before now they’d shake to see him coming. Now, with his rage inflamed for his friend’s death, I fear he’ll raze the walls against the will of fate.† (504). Zeus’ statement shows that Achilles is, in some ways, above fate and will destroy the Greek concept of fate unless someone interferes with his plans. Unfortunately, although Achilles is able to have free will in some aspects, fate still triumphs over him in others. In Book 9, Achilles tells Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax what his mother has told him his fate will be. According to Thetis, Achilles can either choose to go home without glory and live to a ripe old age or he can stay to conquer Troy and earn everlasting glory, but he will not leave Troy alive (265). Consequently, Achilles is presented with two fates; however, unlike others, he is able to choose whichever fate he wants. At this point in the story, Achilles is actually considering going home; thus he is choosing to die old, but without undying glory. This completely changes in Book 18 when Achilles learns that Patroclus has been killed by Hector. Now, Achilles will stop at nothing to get his revenge on Hector; therefore he is now choosing the fate in which he will never return home, but he gets eternal glory. Achilles’ new choice of fate is emphasized in Book 19 when Hera gives his horse the ability to speak. Roan Beauty says, â€Å"Yes! We will save your life—this time too—master, mighty Achilles! But the day of death already hovers near, and we are not to blame but a great god is and the strong force of fate†¦ Our team could race with the rush of the West Wind, the strongest, swiftest blast on earth, men say—still you are doomed to die by force, Achilles, cut down by a deathless god and mortal man!† (501-502). Yet another way in which Achilles is bound by fate appears in Book 22 when he is chasing Hector around Troy. Homer writes, â€Å"But once they reached the springs for the fourth time, then Father Zeus held out his sacred golden scales: in them he placed the two fates of death that lays men low—one for Achilles, one for Hector breaker of horses—and gripping the beam mid-haft the Father raised it high and down went Hector’s day of doom, dragging him down to the strong House of Death—and the god Apollo left him.† (548). Zeus’ decision sets in stone that Achilles must be the one to kill Hector before his own death. Before Book 22, other characters had only alluded to Hector’s fate of death at the hands of Achilles.   One of the main characteristics Achilles exhibits is pride. In Book 1, Achilles is insulted by Agamemnon. Achilles replies, â€Å"Staggering drunk, with your dog’s eyes, your fawn’s heart! Never once did you arm with the troops and go to battle or risk an ambush packed with Achaea’s picked men—you lack the courage, you can see death coming. Safer, by far, you find, to foray all through camp, commandeering the prize of any man who speaks against you. King who devours his people! Worthless husks, the men you rule—if not, Atrides, this outrage would have been your last.† (85). This passage shows that Achilles is proud to battle and finds it shameful when men who claim to be the agathos, or the best, do not prove themselves in battle. In Achilles’ culture, being â€Å"good†, or arà ªte, means that you are good at fighting. Achilles is concluding that since Agamemnon is too scared to fight like his inferiors, he must not be arà ªte. Instead, Achilles believes that he is the agathos rather than Agamemnon, since he has proven his arà ªte and Agamemnon has not. However, Achilles’ pride is his downfall up until the point when he learns that his brother-in-arms, Patroclus, has been killed by Hector. The reason Achilles’ pride was his downfall is because Agamemnon would not give him the respect he deserves; therefore he refused to fight due to his pride and anger. When Patroclus is murdered, Achilles wants his revenge on Hector. Before, in Book 9, Odysseus, Ajax, and Phoenix are sent by Agamemnon to beg Achilles to save the Achaeans from the Trojans and Hector’s rampages. Achilles refuses to budge because his pride will not allow him to take orders from Agamemnon. He also believes that there is no hope for the Achaeans since Zeus is protecting and urging the Trojans on to victory (259-266). Achilles could have been honorable and chose to help the Achaeans out, but his pride and anger against Agamemnon over Briseis won’t allow him to do the right thing. In fact, his pride and anger cause him to make minimal appearances throughout the middle books of The Iliad. Achilles’ pride directly relates to his ultimate conflict of fate vs. free will. His pride and lust for glory play a large part in his decisions, predominately during his choice of a long life with no glory vs. a short life with everlasting glory. Throughout The Iliad, Homer and the other characters describe Achilles as being â€Å"god-like†. The gods in Greek culture are all powerful and immortal, but also extremely selfish like egocentric children. They typically do not care about others; they act only to protect their self-interests, such as their favorite cities and their demigod children. Achilles is selfish like the gods and goddesses. When Achilles failed to cease his anger against Agamemnon, he was protecting his own self-interests and not caring about the deaths and struggles of his Achaean allies; thus him being selfish like the gods is a weakness. Also, part of the reason why Achilles is so selfish is because he is trying to act in a way that will prevent anyone from tarnishing his honor. Likewise, Achilles is trying to prove that he has a legitimate reason to be called the aristos more than anyone else, especially Agamemnon, who Achilles views as a disgrace for a man. On the other hand, in Book 1, Agamemnon says, â€Å"Not so quickly, brave as you are, godlike Achilles—trying to cheat me.† (81). Agamemnon is taking note of the fact that Achilles is brave like the deathless gods and goddesses who know no fear. Achilles’ bravery is also shown by the fact that he doesn’t back down from a fight, not even if it’s against a god, like when he battles the river god Scamander in Book 21. Achilles’ bravery certainly benefits him during the Trojan War, and probably earlier wars too, because he was the only mortal man who wasn’t afraid to stand up to Hector, or anyone else for that matter. Another way in which Achilles is godlike is his appearance and strength. In Book 21, Achilles is talking to King Priam’s son, Lycaon, just before he kills him. He says, â€Å"Even Patroclus died, a far, far better man than you. And look, you see how handsome and powerful I am? The son of a great man, the mother who gave me life a deathless goddess. But even for me, I tell you, death and the strong force of fate are waiting.† (523). Here, Achilles is noting that he is as attractive as a god. The fact that Achilles isn’t like other mortals because he can do certain things that only gods and goddesses can do is yet another way in which Achilles can be described as being godlike. Agenor says in Book 21 that â€Å"Achilles is far too strong for any man on earth.† (538). In Book 16, Homer says, â€Å"And Achilles’ only weapon Patroclus did not take was the great man’s spear, weighted, heavy, tough. No other Achaean fighter could heft that shaft, only Achilles had the skill to wield it well: Pelian ash it was, a gift to his father Peleus presented by Chiron once, hewn on Pelion’s crest to be the death of heroes.† (417). Homer’s words emphasize the fact that Achilles has the strength of the immortal gods. Furthermore, in Book 10, Odysseus and Diomedes have just captured the Trojan spy Dolon and are talking with him. Odysseus says, â€Å"By god, what heroic gifts you set your heart on—the great Achilles’ team! They’re hard for mortal men to curb or drive, for all but Achilles—his mother is immortal.†, again showing that Achilles has strength greater than that of any mortal man (290). One of Achilles’ most obvious characters traits is his defiance and opposition to orders. In Book 1, Achilles says to Agamemnon, â€Å"What a worthless, burnt-out coward I’d be called if I would submit to you and all your orders, whatever you blurt out. Fling them at others, don’t give me commands! Never again, I trust, will Achilles yield to you.† (87). Achilles’ dialogue is a classic example of the fact that the most important thing to Achilles is his honor and thus he strives to prove that he, above all other men, is the agathos. Although Achilles has a few character flaws that ultimately influence his fate, he can still be called honorable in a sense. In Book 1, the seer Calchas tells Achilles that if he reveals Apollo’s prophecy, he will anger a very powerful Achaean. Achilles reassures him, â€Å"Courage! Out with it now, Calchas. Reveal the will of god, whatever you may know. And I swear by Apollo, dear to Zeus, the power you pray to, Calchas, when you reveal the god’s will to the Argives—no one, not while I’m alive and see the light on earth, no one will lay his heavy hands on you by the hollow ships. None among all the armies. Not even if you mean Agamemnon here who now claims to be, by far, the best of the Achaeans.† (80). Achilles has now sworn to protect Calchas from anyone who may try to harm him as a result of Apollo’s prophecy; thus Achilles is demonstrating honor. Even when Agamemnon becomes angry with Calchas for the prophecy, Achilles defends Calchas to the end, which in turn creates the extensive conflict between him and Agamemnon. Achilles’ actions prove that he is a man who keeps his word; therefore he is honorable by modern-day standards. Achilles’ trait of honor is a strength that works to his advantage and certainly influences his outcome of his definitive battle of fate versus free will. Achilles’ battle of free will versus fate is the central conflict of The Iliad. The many character traits that Homer makes apparent throughout the narrative ultimately influence Achilles’ actions and choices. Homer just doesn’t base Achilles’ personality traits on his actions. Rather, what other characters say about him gives the reader a clear understanding of who Achilles is and what his motivations are all the way through. Furthermore, Homer has proven that Achilles truly is the agathos. Works Cited Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Group Inc., 1998. Print.

Adam And Eve The Duality Of Humanity Religion Essay

Adam And Eve The Duality Of Humanity Religion Essay Paradise Losts Adam is a rational, clever and trustworthy character who has an amazing rapport with the highest power, God. It can even be argued that before he fell, his was the epitome of humanity, as perfect a human as ever existed. He shares this trait with Eve who is the most perfect and complete woman. This view has been reciprocated by many religious denominations but each has interpreted it in their own unique ways; from Calvinists to puritans to Milton each has interpreted the story of Genesis in their own unique way. Like Adam who was perfect, to the belief that eve was flawed, each has built their own mythos around the story of the genesis of mankind. The Adam represented in Miltons Paradise Lost is an exceedingly rational being, and can understand greatly sophisticated and complex ideas nearly instantaneously. However this perfection hides several deep and critical flaws present within his character. His character and insight is demonstrated when after observing Raphaels descent into Eden, Adam orders eve to, go with speed, / And what thy stores contain, bring forth and pour / Abundance, fit to honor and receive / Our Heavnly stranger (V, 313-316). To which Eve answers, Adam, earths hallowed mould, / Of God inspird, small store will serve, where store, / All seasons, ripe for use hangs on the stalk (V, 321-323). These word which at first seem stiff and of an overly formal method, nonetheless helps reveal the relationship of Adam and Eve. Adam is in charge, but his request for Eve to prepare a meal is not in any way dismissive. She understands that and her response, is in accord with that message. This transitory conversation is n ot that of a master and servant but of two people who hold themselves in equal regard. His relationship with Eve is not the only conversation between equals, as he also talks with Raphael as an equal. He converses with the archangel Raphael as an equal both, socially in his standing, and intellectually in his ability to clearly understand the meanings behind the Raphaels words. However this ends after Adams fall from the grace of god. After his fall Adam loses his pure intellect and his rationality leading him to brash and increasingly non-rational actions, stripping him of his ability to converse with the angels as an equal. Adams greatest flaw is his unequivocal love for his wife Eve. He falls I love merely upon seeing her for the first, and even confesses to the archangel Raphael that his attraction is nigh overwhelming. Though warned by Raphael to keep his dangerous emotions in check he completely disregards Raphaels earnest urgings. After Eve eats from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, quickly devours a fruit from the same tree in order to prevent him from being separated from her even momentarily. Eve has become an indispensable companion in his life and he will do anything in order to prevent himself from being separated from his only love. His other major weakness is his insatiable curiosity. He manipulates the angel Raphael to extract more information from him, To whom the Patriarch of mankind replid, /O favourable spirit, propitious guest, /Well hast thou taught the way that might direct /Our knowledge, and the scale of Nature set /From center to circumference, whereon/ In contemplation of created things /By steps we may ascend to God. But say, /What meant that caution joind, if ye be found Obedient? Can we want obedience then to him, or possibly his love desert that formd us from the dust, and placd us here full to the utmost measure of what bliss Human desires can seek or apprehend?(Book V 506-518) This suggests a growing attraction to temptation, but like his relationship with Eve this temptation is easily ignored. It is only through Eve that his temptations become truly unavoidable. Created to be Adams mate, Eve can be considered inferior to Adam, but only by a very slight margin. She surpasses Adam only in her beauty. Like the mortal narcissus, she falls in love with her own reflection stilled and entranced by her own beauty. In an ironical sense her beauty her greatest strength is also her greatest flaw. She is easily manipulated by Satan when she is complimented on both her beauty and goodness. But even so it is not her beauty that is tested but her intelligence and spiritual purity. Though she is by no means unintelligent she lacks the ambition and drive to learn more, content to leave all her decisions to Adam as was ordained by God. As a result, she does not advance in either intelligence or in knowledge but remains mostly static, although by the end of the poem she begins to show the seeds of wisdom. Her lack of learning is mostly due to her absence from Raphaels conversations with Adam in Books V, VI, and VII, and her not experiencing Raphaels visions in Books XI and XII. She feels that it is not her place to be present in this discussions but is content to learn from Adam as a third-party. However, Milton is quick to defend her choice as, Yet went she not, as not with such discourse / Delighted, or not capable of her ear / Of what was high: such pleasures she reservd, / Adam relating, she sole Auditress (VIII, 48-51). The only time that she deviates from her mainly passive role, it results in the punishing fall of man. Even so eve does occasionally question Adams choices and ideas. In Book IX, her questioning does lead to temptation, Eve states at the start of Book IX that they can do more work if they work separately. Adam feeling that as Eve was tricked once before Satan when she was alone, resists this idea and refuses to be separated from Eve once more lest she fall once more into temptation. However due to the love he feels for Eve he allows himself to be separated in order to please Eve. This is possibly due only to his love and is not an exercise of his reasonable capabilities. On the other hand, Eve won her argument by cleverly utilizing her few advantages over Adam. Though through her actions she sets herself up to fail by that only together can they resist temptation. However, her character is quite different from the views held by other religious denomination. This fits with the Genesis description that her one major flaw is her curiosity and vanity. She suffers from a need to know that is her one major flaw even in Genesis she cares for him being as she is made to make him happy. Adam is also slightly different in that he is not as confident in himself. However, even more importantly, is the distinct lack of available text to be able extrapolated to provide an adequate portrait of both Adam and Eves general personality. This has not stopped numerous Christian denominations from interpreting her in various fashions. Calvinists believed that Adam was created in such a way he had to sin, predestination. Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to Gods wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls works of the flesh (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from itsuch as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousingshe accordingly calls fruits of sin (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called sins in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.(Calvin,24) This fits with the general view that it is Adams inherent depravity that prevents him from being able to resist Eve. He accepts the temptation because he too wants the forbidden and to disobey. (Calvin Chap 11, 30It also fits extremely well with their general view of God as a tyrant. This view was unconsciously shared by many members of the Reformation. This belief was predestination or the belief that whether a person will go to heaven or hell is decided before a person is even born. If this fact is taken in consideration with the saga of Adam and Eve it creates the image of a sadistic god who created Adam and Eve only to cause them to fall. In this way it is a reflection of the general attitude held by many Reformationists is that humanity is in general doomed, a nihilist philosophy which either caused a person to believe they were exceedingly blessed or to despair in their spiritual state. Moreover, we say that our pollution is so great, that it can never be washed away save in the fountain of his pure blood. Must not those who are thus addressed conceive a greater horror of sin than if it were said to be wiped off by a sprinkling of good works? If they have any reverence for God, how can they, after being once purified, avoid shuddering at the thought of again wallowing in the mire, and as much as in them lies troubling and polluting the purity of this fountain? I have washed my feet, (says the believing soul in the Song of Solomon, 5:3), how shall I defile them? It is now plain which of the two makes the forgiveness of sins of less value, and derogates from the dignity of justification. They pretend that God is appeased by their frivolous satisfactions; in other words, by mere dross. We maintain that the guilt of sin is too heinous to be so frivolously expiated; that the offense is too grave to be forgiven to such valueless satisfactions; and, therefore, that forgive ness is the prerogative of Christs blood alone. (Calvin, Chap.16, 4) This is important in that Milton represents God as an emotionally distant controlling god. He is not available to be loved, but only held in awe. We can never merit this love only accept the free gift. Milton does not make God approachable as are his Adam and Eve. Therefore, Miltons Adam and Eve are not the Calvinistic fallen and depraved, but men, like ourselves who chose error through faults, but are still with much merit. Throughout time the saga of Adam and Eve has been analyzed and rewoven a multitude of times over the ages Miltons incarnation has earned its pedestal as the supreme mythos of the genesis of mankind, while others have interpreted Adam and eve as chosen of God, the fallen, or as victims of a malevolent god. There is only one thing certain that not much is known of Adam and Eve but much still can be learned from Miltons the relationship between man and woman and the future we can claim.

CIA’s 50 Years of Corrupt Drug Trafficking :: Argumentative Persuasive Papers

CIA’s 50 Years of Corrupt Drug Trafficking The CIA’s 50-year history of smuggling drugs into America is generating hatred for the United States throughout the world. Like Pontius Pilate, CIA washes their hands of the human tragedies and the corruption of government offices. They do this by remaining and by refusing to recognize the evidence, supporting corruption. For the past 50 years, the CIA has abused its power by deliberately drugging and corrupting America; and therefore should be prosecuted. According to the constitution, the people for the people originally created the government to be a group of elect â€Å"organizers† (not controllers) employed. One can say the CIA is a mutated part of the US government. The CIA was created when a Wall Street lawyer and banker wrote The National Security Act of 1947. Clark Clifford was the man who brought the CIA backed drug bank BCCI into the United States. CIA heroin trafficking moved in the 1960’s and 1970’s from the Turkey-Marseilles connection to the Asian connection. For decades until the 1950s, Asian government supported the opium trade, because money was flowing in as long as the opium was flowing out. By the early 1960s, the mountain areas of Southeast Asia produced most of the world's opium. In the early 1950’s in Southeast Asia, the CIA organized the Nationalist Chinese army to start a war against Communist China. This Chinese army became the opium distributors of the â€Å"Golden Triangle† (parts of Burma, Thailand and Laos). The â€Å"Golden Triangle† has the most abundance of opium and heroin in the world. In order to smuggle drugs, the CIA’s main airline, Air America, flew drugs all over Southeast Asia. (Robbins 154) From the early 1950’s to early 1970’s during U.S. military involvement in Laos, Indochina, opium and heroin were flown by â€Å"Air America† into many countries, including Vietnam. As a result of CIA’s drug smuggling, Southeast Asia became the source of 70% of the world’s opium and heroin. South Vietnam was completely corrupted by a heroin trade that came from Laos, thanks to the CIA. The Hmong culture in Laos provided 30,000 men for the CIA's secret Laotian army. But in the process, opium production took over Hmong culture. To support the Hmong economy, the CIA's â€Å"Air America† transported raw opium out of the Laotian hills to the labs. By mid-1971, Army medical officers estimated that fifteen percent of American GIs were addicted (Stich 142).

Utilitarianism in Crime and Punishment Essay -- Crime Punishment Essay

Utilitarianism in Crime and Punishment      Ã‚  Ã‚   Raskolnikov's mathematical evaluation of the moral dilemma presented to him in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment exemplifies the empirical view of utilitarianism.   Utilitarianism attempts to distinguish between right and wrong by measuring a decision based on its calculated worth.   Raskolnikov appears to employ the fundamentals of utilitarianism by pitting the negative consequences of murdering his old landlady against the positive benefits that her money would bestow onto society.   However, a true follower of utilitarianism would be outraged at Raskolnikov's claim that murdering the old woman can be considered morally right. Raskolnikov arbitrarily leaves out some necessary considerations in his moral "equation" that do not adhere to utilitarianism.   A utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not reached an acceptable solution because he has not accurately solved the problem.   On the other hand, a non-utilitarian would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a mathematical manner.   He might contend that Raskolnikov's reasoning, and the entire theory of utilitarianism, cannot be used to judge morality because it rejects individual rights and contains no moral absolutes.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   A utilitarian bases his belief upon two principles:   the theory of right actions and the theory of value.   These two principles work together and serve as criteria for whether or not a utilitarian can deem an action morally right. First, the theory of right action argues that the morally right decision is the one whose consequences are at least as good as any other availa... ...    Gibson, A Boyce. The Religion of Dostoyevsky. Philadelphia: Westmenster Press, 1973. Monas, Sidney, trans. Crime and Punishment. By Fyodor Dostoyevsky. New York: Penguin, 1968.    Morsm, Gary Saul. "How to Read. Crime and Punishment." Commentary 1992 June, 93 (6):  Ã‚   49-53.    Rosenshield, Gary "The Realization of the Collective Self: The Birth of Religious Autobiography in Dostoevski's Zapiski iz Mertvogo Doma." Slavic Review 1991 Summer 50 (2): 317-27.    Panichas, George A. "The World of Dostoyevsky." Modern Age 22: 346-57    Mann, Robert. "Elijah the Prophet in Crime and Punishment." Canadian Slavonic Papers 1981 Sept 23 (3): 261-72.    Yancey, Phillip. "Be Ye Perfect, More or Less: Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and the impossible Sermon on the Mount." Christianity Today 17 July 1991: 38-41.

Essay --

I am applying to Stanford University for admission to the Ph.D. program in Computer Science. My research interests lie in the field of Computational Biology (CB). More specifically, I am interested in employing probabilistic and statistical methods to analyze genomic data more efficiently and accurately. As a statement of purpose of my graduate study, I describe here my academic background, research interests and future career plan. When I began my undergraduate career, I had the opportunity to be exposed to the full range of science courses. I rapidly became fascinated by the beauty of biological sciences and recognized the important role that computing and quantitative methods play in life sciences research. Dr. Dawkins once remarked, ``If you want to understand life, don't think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology." I could not agree more that computing (rather than mere experimentation) is the future of life sciences, and the sole idea of blending life sciences and computing in scientific research excites me. I was first officially introduced to the field of CB in my freshman summer, when I worked as a research assistant in the Center for Genomic Sciences, University of Hong Kong (HKU). During this project, I evaluated the performance of the Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis software, conducting simulation studies based on a thorough literature review. I have gradually cultivated my persistence and self-study ability which I believe is crucial for becoming a researcher. In my second year, I went on exchange in UC Berkeley and audited the graduate course for Statistical Genomics there. Among the 20 or so students taking or auditing the course, I was the sole undergraduate. The course ... ...rful and friendly on this beautiful campus. Everybody here is living in Mr. and Mrs. Stanford's love for their son, and love makes everyday a perfect day. Perhaps this additional reason is not proper in a statement of purpose, but I strongly desire to continue my studies in Stanford, not only because of your excellent faculty and strong interdisciplinary research, but also because I feel that I belong here and my character accords with Stanford's spirit of freedom and love. To me, every step is not a finish, but a new start. I believe that your Ph.D. program would provide an stimulating and challenging environment for me to realize my full potential, and I possess the perseverance, intelligence and motivation to thrive and contribute to your team. I am fully prepared for my next step at the doctoral level in Stanford, and I look forward to this brand new beginning.

Antony and Cleopatra Essay

This scene presents the readers with a brief preface to the universally known love story of Antony, the ‘triple power of this world’, and Cleopatra, his ‘wrangling strumpet’. The scene opens with two Romans, Philo and Demetrius, discussing the incredible power Cleopatra has over Antony and the remarkable change they can perceive in Antony’s character. Through Philo’s opening speech we are told that Antony’s former qualities included those of a strong-minded ruler and a valiant warrior, including physical prowess and military skill. However, the Romans now see him as a changed man who is no longer behaving like a ruler; instead of fulfilling the duties of a leader and returning to Rome, he is being ruled by a â€Å"tawny gypsy†. Thus, before meeting the lovers themselves, we are presented with the Roman attitude towards the relationship; responsibility and allegiance has been abandoned for love. We sense that Antony must be debating in his mind whether to pursue his passion or perform his duty, and those around him are anxiously waiting for him to embrace his role as a leader again and return to his former self. On observing the interaction between the two characters, I found myself accepting Philo’s objections to the relationship and his observations on Antony’s altered state, and studying the evident infatuation that is blinding Antony as he loses his sense of responsibility. Cleopatra is his self-indulgence, and he cannot entirely understand his great sexual passion for her. We know that his overindulgence leads to a loss of reason and control later in the play, and the disregard he expresses in this first scene towards his obligations makes us aware of the great power his passion has. â€Å"Let the Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch/of their love. † His indifference towards the news from Rome again illustrates how he is shirking his duties in Rome when under the spell of the exotic, mysterious eastern monarch. From the first scene, we learn of Cleopatra’s ‘tawny front’, entrapment of a great general and her ‘gypsy lust’. Her entrance is a grand one, accompanied by Antony, ‘her Ladies, the train, with Eunuchs fanning her’. Her authority and command as a ruler are emphasized, and as we then witness in the dialogue between the lovers, her power over Antony mirrors her political power. In this first scene, we see Cleopatra as both dominant and skeptical. ‘If it be love indeed’, she taunts Antony, ‘tell me how much. ‘ Antony, the ‘triple pillar of the world’ is ‘transform’d /Into a strumpet’s fool’ as he prepares to renounce all his power in exchange for Cleopatra. Cleopatra seems to love these assertions of love, as she is wary of the fact that she stands on loose ground, even though she is a seductress of the best abilities. Antony is married to Fulvia, and Cleopatra questions his love for his wife†¦ is it greater than the love he holds for her? We see here that her love for Antony is possessive, yet she too depends on it. Although she dominates Antony in the opening exchanges, her first line ‘If it be love indeed, tell me how much’ points to the ever searching, questing, explorative nature of her personality. She teases, wrangles and resists the definite, whilst playing on Antony’s weak spots, reminding him of his wife and public responsibilities. Thus, I feel the strongest aspect of the relationship that Shakespeare conveys here is highlighted when Antony tells Cleopatra ‘There’s not a minute of our lives should stretch/Without some pleasure now’: all is to be reduced and sacrificed for the sensuous, intense pleasure of the moment – hedonism is to predominate over duty and responsibility.