The Symbol Of Blood In Macbeth Essays - Characters In Macbeth

The Symbol of Blood in Macbeth Blood is known to all of us to represent life, death and often injury. Blood is an essential part of life, and without blood, we could not live. This is known to everyone, and because of this, when Shakespeare uses the symbol of blood to represent treason, murder and death, it is easily understood and fits in perfectly with the ideas we have of blood. Blood is mentioned often in the play and most times in reference to murder or treason. The first sinister reference to blood is in Act 2, Scene 1, when Macbeth sees the dagger floating in the air leading him to Duncan's room and he sees "on the blade and dudgeon gouts of blood", indicating that the knife has been visciously and violently stabbed into someone. The next reference, in Scene 2, is when Lady Macbeth smears the blood from the dagger on the faces and hands of the sleeping servants "I'll guild the faces of the grooms withal, for it must seem their guilt". This is another sinister and evil reference to blood, setting up the innocent servants of the king. Again, blood is referred to when Malcolm and Donaldbain are discussing what to do and Malcolm says : "there's daggers in men's smiles: the nearer in blood, the nearer bloody." Meaning that their closest relatives are likely to kill them. Again, blood is being used to describe treason, murder and death. In Act 5, Scene 1 - the sleepwalking scene, while Lady Macbeth is sleepwalking, there are constant references to the evil deeds that Macbeth and herslef have committed, most of which include references to blood. She goes through the motions of washing her hands saying "Out damned spot! Out, I say" in reference to the blood that stained her hands after smearing it all over the servants. She also refers to Duncan's murder saying : "Yet who would have thought the old man to have so much blood in him!". All these references are to murder and both include direct references to blood, again linking blood to treachery and murder. I think that throughout the play, Shakespeare effectively conveys theme of death, murder and treason through the symbol of blood. Normally, the word blood makes us think about injury and death, being an essential part of life, and the symbol of blood being used in the play is understood by the audience as being essential to life, and in the context it is used, it is a perfect metaphor for death and murder. I think that it is an effective symbol and is used well.

How the State Profits from War Essays

How the State Profits from War Essays How the State Profits from War Essay How the State Profits from War Essay One of the most abiding misconceptions in economic science is that war is good to the economic system ( Moffatt. n. pag. ) . This myth was farther perpetuated by the economic expert and New York Times editorialist Paul Krugman. who wrote: Ghastly as it may look. ( the devastation of the World Trade Center ) could even make some economic good†¦ the drive force behind the economic lag has been a dip in concern investing. Now. all of a sudden. we need some new office buildings ( Tracinski. n. pag. ) . Indeed. bad economic sciences reign in minutes of crisis and or terror. when people are despairing for solutions. To rebut the alleged benefits of the War Economy. reviews use the fallacy of the broken window ( Tracinski. n. pag. ) . When a vandal throws a brick through a shop’s window and the shop’s proprietor has to pass. state. $ 200 for the window’s fix. the people will believe that the defacer has given a positive part to society. After all. the fix of the broken window meant an instant encouragement in employment and economic activity ( Tracinski. n. pag. ) . But what these short-sighted citizens didn’t know was that the $ 200 that was spent on repairing the window could hold been used in ventures that might hold advanced the store owner’s endeavor. Unfortunately. advocates of the War Economy assumed that ( since ) a broken window can excite the economic system. ( it must be better ) when literally 1000s of them are broken ( Tracinski. n. pag. ) . For them. wars are important for the endurance of modern economic systems ( Cline. n. pag. ) . War Economy advocates believed that about every industry is involved with supplying goods and services to the armed forces ( uniforms. nutrient. medical specialties. arms fabricating. etc. ) . Hence. should war be eliminated. these concerns. peculiarly engineering and fabrication. will turn up up. Another statement of the angels of the War Economy is that it is the fastest solution to an economic slack ( Moffatt. n. pag. ) . When the economic system is undergoing recession. production is low and people are passing less than usual. But when the authorities goes into war. it will necessitate arms and equipment for its soldiers. Economic activity is hence expected to increase due to the rise both in authorities disbursement and the private sector’s concern minutess with the miliatry. Corporations will scramble for contracts that will let them to provide uniforms. vehicles and bombs to the ground forces. These companies will hold to engage more workers to maintain up with the addition in demand. take downing the unemployment rate in the procedure. There are even some workers who will be employed to replace those who volunteered as reservists abroad. Since the unemployment rate is decreased. consumers will pass more once more. Increased ingestion. in bend. will hike the retail sector. At the terminal of the twenty-four hours. there will be overall economic growing. thanks to the authorities fixing for war. However. critics contended that the above-named jutting economic promotion is at the disbursal of incapacitated civilians from Third World states ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . In 2002. one-year planetary military outgos were estimated to be more than $ 800 billion ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . The United States was at the top of this list. passing $ 343. 2 billion annually ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . Canada earned more than $ 3 million from selling arms in the same twelvemonth ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . Harmonizing to the United Nations Platform for Action Committee – Manitoba ( UNPAC-Manitoba ) article The Economicss of War ( n. d. ) . a big portion of the economic systems of all of the world’s wealthiest states derives from the sale of weapons ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . From 1996 to 2000. the US exported $ 54 billion worth of weaponries – 45 % of the entire sum of arms that was exported around the universe ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . Russia came 2nd at $ 21 billion ( 17 % ) . followed by France ( $ 11 billion or 9 % ) . the United Kingdom ( $ 8 billion or 7 % ) and Germany ( $ 6 billion or 5 % ) ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . As a consequence. says the United Nations Development Program ( UNDP ) in 2002. 500. 000 firearm-related deceases occur yearly ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . Each twelvemonth. land mines kill 15. 000-20. 000 kids and grownups ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . Iraq’s malignant neoplastic disease rates rose to 700 % between 1991 and 1994 due to chemical arms. while 86 million people have perished in belligerencies after World War II ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unpac. ca. n. pag. ) . The Iraq war in 2003 was the latest illustration of how the US turned war into a money-making venture. It was rooted in the logic of planetary monopoly capital. specifically American capitalist economy. to spread out into an empire ( Barona. 33 ) . Despite being packaged as a terrorist war. ( to transfuse fear among disparagers ) it was brought approximately by the globalisation policies of American transnational companies. peculiarly the US oil industry and the military-industrial composite ( MIC ) ( Barona. 33 ) . Iraq is one of the world’s biggest oil militias – it. along with other OPEC states such as Saudi Arabia. Iran. Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. has 79 % of the world’s entire oil supply ( __________ . 16 ) . For the US to hold limitless entree to Iraq’s oil. it merely had to take Saddam Hussein. a steadfast US opposition. from power. Back place. the US economic system was sustained by military disbursement – the injection of fresh capital was necessary to resuscitate an economic system that would go on to deteriorate if left to the free market ( Barona. 33 ) . But the Iraq war proved to be black for the US economic system. The US spends $ 200 million daily merely to be able to go on its military operations in Iraq ( Wolk. n. pag. ) . Even if the US eventually decides to draw its military personnels out of Iraq within another three old ages. entire direct and indirect costs to US taxpayers will probably by more than $ 400 billion†¦the entire economic impact at up to $ 2 trillion ( Wolk. n. pag. ) . Economist and Nobel Prize victor Joseph Stiglitz ( a well-known castigator of the Iraq war ) claimed that the entire cost of US military intercession in Iraq is a staggering $ 1 trillion to $ 2 trillion. including $ 500 billion for the war and business and up to $ 300 billion in future wellness attention costs for hurt troops ( Wolk. n. pag. ) . Stiglitz added that farther disbursals include a negative impact from the lifting cost of oil and added involvement on the national debt ( Wolk. n. pag. ) . These astronomically immense amounts of money came from revenue enhancements – financess that should hold been diverted to basic societal services such as instruction. wellness and lodging. While ordinary American citizens were enduring from the economic calamity brought approximately by the Iraq war. a few persons and corporations cahsed in on the said struggle. In 2007. Lockheed Martin ( the taking arms maker in the US ) had a net income addition of 22 % ( Scheer. n. pag. ) . In the same twelvemonth. the net incomes of its rivals Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics rose by 62 % and 22 % . severally ( Scheer. n. pag. ) . Boeing’s net incomes. meanwhile. increased by 61 % ( Scheer. n. pag. ) . Below are some personalities who were said to hold besides profitted from the Iraq War: a ) Former US President George W. Bush. Sr. – Shareholder and former Senior Advisor in the Carlyle Group. a defence contractor with ties to the Saudi royal household and the Bin Ladens. B ) Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci – Member of the RAND Board of Trustees and co-chair of the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy Advisory Board. Besides the president of the Carlyle Group. degree Celsius ) Former Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury James Baker – Former Carlyle Senior Counselor. vitamin D ) White House Budget Advisor Richard Darman – Carlyle Managing Director vitamin E ) US Vice President Dick Cheney – Head of Halliburton Co. . an oil endeavor that traded with Libya and Iran through foreign subordinates ( Lynch. n. pag. ) . Thankss to the craze brought approximately by the War on Terrorism and the Iraq war. taxpayers were swindled into funding the War Economy that made millionaires out of Bush and his like. And every bit long as the absurd propaganda of The War on Terrorism and the Iraq war continues to be. ordinary Americans will pass their full lives paying revenue enhancements non for basic societal services. but as a tribute to Bush and his kind for them to be able to populate like male monarchs. Plants Cited The Oil Equation in the US Bid against Iraq. Education for Development October 2002: 15-16. Barona. Caesar. Technology. Power and the War against Terrorism. The National Guilder July 2002: 32-33. Cline. Austin. Economic Benefits of War. n. d. About. com. 18 February 2008 lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //atheism. about. com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_wardef_econ. htm gt ; . Lynch. Colum. Firms Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said. 23 June 2001. Global Policy Forum. 19 February 2008 lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. globalpolicy. org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen. htm gt ; . Moffatt. Mike. Are Wars Good for the Economy? n. d. About. com 18 February 2008 lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //economics. about. com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy. htm gt ; .