Customer Integration and Satisfaction Forum 5 TLMT 441 Assignment

Customer Integration and Satisfaction Forum 5 TLMT 441 - Assignment Example During the September 1 attack on the U.S, the terrorists hijacked a passenger carrier airplane sending worrying signals to customers regarding their safety. Customer’s reaction in relation to the safety concern is evident in all motor carriers within the U.S. In examining whether strategic change is essential for the long-term benefits of an organization, the study: To change or not to change, takes a close examination on customer’s feelings regarding all motor carriers’ firms’ response after the September 11 incident (Atwater et al, 2011). The data gathered indicates a huge disruption and downturns following the terrorist attack. For example, the normal operations in the motor carriers firms declined by more than half. Although, some carriers changed their strategies after the attacks, performance was still not impressing. All the carriers performed awful following the attacks as customers grew fear irrespective of any security measures the firms included (Atwater et al, 2011). As a matter of fact, a declined performance was achieved by firs that opted change their strategies as opposed to those that stuck with earlier strategies. In conclusion, adopting strategic measures after a strategic surprise is not a guarantee of developing customer satisfaction (Kotler, 2010). As evidenced through the change of strategy by the carrier firms that changed their strategy following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Other than adopting strategic changes, the study finds out that customer satisfaction and integration is a continuous

Cloud security, DATA LOSS and HIJACKING Literature review

Cloud security, DATA LOSS and HIJACKING - Literature review Example Users can upload and access uploaded pictures, documents, music files. www.dropbox.com cloud computing site offers possible free 18 gigabytes of memory to its users (Blaisdell, 2012). Further, the users of cloud computing can choose between public or private computing types. The public computing type allows anyone to access the data saved in the remote server (Howell, 2012). Under the private type computing, unauthorized persons are not allowed to access the data saved on the remote server. The term cloud equates to being invisible. Cloud computing entails outsourcing data storage to another location, cloud (Shor, 2011).The cloud is user-prioritized, filling the computing needs of the users (Gillam, 2010). The persons using the cloud service do know the hardware or software used by the cloud service providers. Likewise, the cloud service clients do not know where the files are saved, the location of the cloud service providers being â€Å"hidden† from the cloud service users. People using internet –capable cell phones, tablets, and computers can save their files in the cloud computing sites. They can then access their files from the cloud server sit es from any available computer, tablet, or internet- capable cell phones. Consequently, the users of the cloud computing sites do not need unnecessarily high gigabyte capacity memory cards or drives to save their huge files on their cell phones, tablets, or computers. To ensure high quality cloud computing service, data loss and hijacking must be reduced to allowable levels. In addition, the above picture shows how the basic cloud computing setup works. One cloud computing person can access the same files from the same cloud computing site from a tablet, cell phone or any computer terminal. Some cloud computing sites offer either the free or paid membership its users (Jamsa, 2011). One cloud computing service provider offers the file saving privileges to many clients.

Cultural Phenomenon of the Celebrity: Hermeneutic Analysis

Cultural Phenomenon of the Celebrity: Hermeneutic Analysis New ways of thinking can often illuminate new ideas that would not come to light using our conventional and most natural modes of reasoning. We can be stretched in dynamic ways by altering our methods or approaches to our thinking. Several methods of thinking include exploration of the unconscious, symbolic systems, radical Synthesis, hermeneutic analysis, among others. For me, the hermeneutic form of thinking has the most unsettling effect upon my mind. A hermeneutic approach has experience a revival in recent times in the wake of influential thinkers such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and others. These hold a significant place in the present intellectual climate in the Western world. For this essay, I decided to use a hermeneutic approach to analyze a particular cultural phenomenon. Cultural phenomena are of vital importance for study since they represent aspects of human nature (en masse) that are impossible to extrapolate independently. Not only are they interesting to stu dy, but they maintain continual interest for elites and common people alike. It is not a stretch to state that these phenomena successfully capture the population’s imagination. In this particular essay, I will look at the cultural phenomena of the celebrity using hermeneutic analysis. The hermeneutical way of thinking, in this case, won’t apply to a given text but rather to the social phenomenon of â€Å"celebritydom†. By thinking about social phenomena in a hermeneutical way, one can look at a subject that rarely gets such scrutiny and hopefully begin to find understanding as to why our societies are so enthralled by the celebrity narrative. The development of a new form of â€Å"celebritydom† can be understood in a new way by understanding the context, audience, media sources, and other hermeneutical factors. First of all, we will begin to think about the context of celebrities in the past. There has most obviously been a shift in Western Society in the development of the celebrity. It has not been an overnight shift by any means, but it has been significant. The most outstanding example of recent changes in the nature of celebrity is the professional celebrity—a celebrity with little reason to be revered or famous. The prime example would be the infamous Paris Hilton. Although a notable heiress to her parent’s fortune, she has become a celebrity in her own right through self-promotion. There are countless heirs to various fortunes that will never be known. This kind of character, however, is unprecedented, even in the 20th century. Most celebrities came into being through some sort of accomplishment, i.e. film, music, politics, sports, etc. Or, they became celebrities by association, such as royalty. The amount of coverage allotted to celebrity-esque storylines has grown exponentially. Entire television channels are devoted to the ceaseless coverage of ce lebrity’s lives. A whole subclass of photography has developed in the â€Å"paparazzi,† known for being the epitome of the dog-eat-dog line of work. Not to mention the countless â€Å"tabloids† that line the newsstands. These are some of the basic contextual factors that surround the modern celebrity phenomenon. Another factor for thinking about this social phenomenon is the audience. The audience for the development of new celebrities that must be analyzed if one is to use a hermeneutical strategy. The audience for much of celebrity press and concern has largely not changed in type, but likely has changes in how broad the appeal is. It would have been impossible to imagine that Clark Gable’s personal life would have been known or a concern for Middle East youth fifty years ago. Today, however, in all corners of the world they not only know the names of key celebrities but also their storylines of gossip. I remember being asked in a remote village in Albania about the future of â€Å"J-Lo† and Ben Affleck’s relationship if they got married. Obviously this change has a lot to do with the digital revolution—opening up a large part of the world to a previously unknown celebrity world. It also betrays the fact that the same phenomenon is at work in these non-Western c ountries as is here in the West. Knowledge and a pursuit of information about Western celebrities could also reveal an admiration of the culture of celebrities by the non-West, but often times these elements remain even in countries predisposed to hate the west. Although many citizens of these said countries likely separate the politics and the culture of the West, a large majority still do not. There is an effect of â€Å"can’t help but look† type psychology in regards to coverage of celebrities. Just like in the West, many in these societies likely think the coverage is superfluous and or wrong. Although a judgment has been made concerning the validity and morality of celebrity coverage many remain to have a working knowledge of the ins and outs of Hollywood love life. These ‘stories’ seem to do something for us en masse. Using further hermeneutical strategies, we will now turn to the sources for the coverage of celebrity gossip and the like. If one is to exit the supermarket on a given day he or she is given the opportunity to be swiftly educated in celebritydom. The print media is a key source of information on celebrities. This seems to be chiefly centered on magazines; the newspaper medium seems to inadequately address the goals of celebrity coverage. The magazine provides the opportunity for vivid pictures, small pithy commentary, and quick entertainment. It is glitzy, stylish, and most of all fast. Whereas one may need to have some backround in Middle Eastern politics in order to find parts of the newspaper engaging, the celebrity magazine can bring the glamour and scandal of the celebrity phenomenon with little or no education. The celebrity magazine is an odd mix of â€Å"posed† shots of red carpet entries into various galas, possibly a celebrity interview/photo shoot, and scandalizing pictures kindly provided by the paparazzi. This seems to be a winning combination of glamour, personal interest, and scandal. The second main conduit for the celebrity phenomenon is the television medium. As mentioned before, â€Å"E!† is an entire channel devoted to the coverage of celebrity life. This is not to mention the countless celebrity news shows, and their subsequent spoofs. Celebrity news shows use a similar format compared to that of their magazine cousins. The show usually features some sort of personal interaction with a celebrity, praising the glamour or character of a particular celebrity, and (of course) the mandatory scandal. These shows have produced celebrities in their own right out of the mere reporting on celebrities. The prime example is Ryan Seacrest. Seacrest is the epitome of the ultimate host, having hosted the top twenty for years on a radio station in Los Angeles, been an E! â€Å"anchor,† and most famously the host of American Idol. Seacrest has become a celebrity by merely reporting on celebrities. Both media types—that of magazine and t.v.—have wo rked in conjunction. One reports on the other and vice versa. One makes the other. Using a hermeneutical strategy to look at the social phenomenon of the celebrity has brought to light several profound new ideas for me. The first is what celebrity coverage does for us. I have come to the conclusion at various times that humans have at all times needed a common narrative in their social relationships. In days gone by, this narrative could be sustained by regional parochial concerns. A village would find a bond in the fact that their story was shared, they lived close to one another, married into each other’s families, etc. The gossip and glory of a small town would sustain its people. Yet, as society has diversified, fragmented, pluralized, etc. it has lost that local connection that is vital for human connection. At the most basic social level, we need something to talk about—a common ground. Human connection is essential for the flourishing of human life. Celebrity coverage, professional sports, and other modern social phenomena seek to fill that voi d. In a time when we increasingly find our human contact in less connected or natural ways, such coverage give us a cultural common ground. We can gripe about the fortunes of Liverpool or quip about the Beckham family to absolute strangers and they will likely be able to track with our line of thought. Celebrity narratives give us a common ground for humor, social reflection, and allusions. In order to have fulfilling communication we must have some sort of shared story, even if these stories are plastic in nature. Our society has inevitably become more diverse, global, and connected. This has inevitably lead to an erosion of parochial concerns, and pushed us to socially evolve in order to maintain human connection. We have found common social narrative in the celebrity. Their story has become a common story for us. Their divorces, their cheating, their success, their money, etc., have all become a commentary about our own lives. This line of thought leads me to an additional hermen eutic conclusion concerning celebrity coverage and its reflective nature. We are not interested in celebrities just because they happen to be successful but because they are reflective. Celebrities embody our hopes and dreams, fears and pitfalls, and desire for detachedness. The populace not only celebrates celebrity success, but also celebrates celebrity failure. There is a lust for failure as much as there is for success in the interest in these lives. It is interesting to note that the most famous celebrities are those where there are equal portions success and failure. This is important. Without adjoining failure these celebrities fail to capture people’s imagination. Too much success and too much failure both trigger a lose of interest in the given celebrity. Celebrities find themselves in a proverbial catch-22, trying to allow promotion while not being raked through the coals. The most successful in this respect have allowed both. The reality about celebrity coverage is that we are not interested because these people are necessarily glamorous (there are a lot of unknown glamorous people to be found). We are interested because celebrities create for us a narrative for self reflection and self understanding. Having used hermeneutical techniques such as analyzing the context, audience, media sources, etc., I have come to some interesting new ideas and understanding about a key phenomenon in our society—the celebrity. In previous times, I have been rather perplexed as to why we care so much about these lives. Yet after thinking about the topic using hermeneutical analysis, I have come to several profound reasons as to why this is so.

Sanctity of Life Essay -- Science Biology

Sanctity of Human Life Does a person have the right to kill another human life, at any stage of development? A city council debates over whether to sacrifice Bill, a man with no earthly attachments, to save five members of society. Two parents face the choice of using an embryonic stem cell treatment to reverse their son’s paralysis, or leave him paralyzed from the neck down. The mother wishes to employ the treatment while the stepfather is against the treatment because it kills an embryo. In both situations, sanctity of life compels one not to sacrifice an innocent human life, potential or existing, to improve the well-being of another. An embryo is potential human life; therefore, one cannot sacrifice it. Potential human life is present at the point of conception, when the egg and sperm join. Only nine months separate this embryo from being a developed human. Letting an embryo die to increase the well-being of the young man disregards the sanctity of human life. The young man still has potential; he is not dead. The embryo personifies the rawest potential in human life. Both are human lives that have inviolable potential. Kant’s categorical imperative is applicable here. The embryo is an end, not a means. It should be valued for its very existence; it is a significant life with equal standing alongside other lives. A universal law is moral only if applied to all persons. If one believes all should be honest, then he or she must be honest or that law is not universal. Universal application of the sanctity of life deems sacrificing one to save another as immoral, for then one is making an exception to that law . Thus, no form of human life is worthy of sacrifice. In the organ-harvesting dilemma, the sanctity of life prevents... ...at endangers others. Works Cited Weston, Anthony. A 21st Century Ethical Tool Box. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 2008. Print. Pgs.127-144 Anthony Weston has taught ethics for 25 years and currently is a professor of ethics at Elon University. He has written numerous books regarding ethics and the employment of them. This book is a guide discovering ethics, their morality, and application. He utilizes vivid excerpts from renowned authors and philosophers to impart information effectively. While reading this book, one discovers new concepts about the world around one and oneself. Weston credits collaborative professors of similar studies, with helping produce this book in the beginning of the text. Information taken from Weston’s book was crucial for understanding ethics, especially the excerpt from Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics Morals.

Proof of Unreliability in the Cask of Amontillado

Michael Ljubsa ID# 1790093 Rashmi Jyoti ENGL-103 CU85 Word Count: 998 Proof of Unreliability in The Cask of Amontillado Edgar Allan Poe is an author known for his pieces of literature which capture the element of mystery. Many times, scholars debate over the true meaning behind his texts as they are often written as narratives. This combination of an unclear meaning behind his work and the fact that his stories are narratives often leads to the question of, â€Å"To what extent can the narrator be relied upon? † The same issue arises in Poe's, â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado†.The story is a reflection of the past, involving a plot that evolves into a murder mystery involving two gentlemen, Montresor and Fortunato. The story is told from Montresor's point of view, recalling an event that occured fifty years ago. Montresor secretly despises Fortunato due to past â€Å"insults† that are claimed to be unforgiveable. Montresor demands revenge for these acts and plans Fo rtunato's murder and later tricks him into death. The story provokes questioning as to whether the narrator of the story can be relied upon to accurately display the events described.In Edgar Allan Poe's, â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado†, Montresor does not provide enough insight into the information that remains with hidden meaning. He fails to provide significant causes for action due to the lack of description and proof, and the arugment of whether Montresor could be considered insane also arises. Montresor only further confuses the reader by pointing out all the obvious irony surrounding the two main characters Montresor and Fortunato. Therefore, the narrator's accounts cannot be considered reliable.The lack of Montresor's ability to explain the past and why he feels such a hatred towards Fortunato is why his account of the story cannot be relied upon. â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado† begins with Montresor providing his own reason for wishing death upon Fortunato. The two first lines read, â€Å"The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge†(218). Right from the start the reader is confused as to what this â€Å"insult† actually is, as it remains to go unexplained for the remainder of the story. In her article discussing â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado†, Elena V. Baraban asks, â€Å"Why did he do it? (47) The intrigue of the story comes from attempting to answer this seemingly simple question. Many stories would provide a motive and reason for such horrendous acts; however, Montresor provides no such explanation for the murder he commits. It can be continually questioned as to what this â€Å"insult† was, as no rational person would avenge an insult with murder. The narrator's reliabilty is questioned even further considering Montresor withstood â€Å"thousand injuries† borne upon him by Fortunato. It seems as though Montresor was not remotely bot hered by these injuries, which reiterates the question of: Why did he do it?What exactly made Montresor take Fortunato's insult in such a disrespectful and hateful way that would make him wish death upon Fortunato? This confusion proves the narrators unreliability. A second idea supporting the notion that Montresor is an unreliable narrator is the seemingly apparent insanity of Montresor. Restating the thought of Montresor murdering Fortunato over an insult supports the idea of Montresor being insane. An instance where Montresor could be viewed as insane would be where he is imprisoning the helpless Fortunato behind a brick wall that he has constructed. I placed my hand upon the solid fabric of the catacombs, and felt satisfied. â€Å"(222) The gratification that comes of ease over Montresor as a result of his murder makes insanity a high possibility for a motif behind his actions. Montressor's fulfillment is also shown when he states, â€Å"My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so† (223). Even after fifty years, Montresor feels absolutely no remorse for his actions. Such a lack of sorrow and guilt, even after fifty years, could only be found with a psychopath. Montresor's insanity makes his description even more unreliable.Another aspect of the story that makes Montressor unreliable is all the irony that he brings to our attention. We find that Fortunato is named ironically, as Fortunato, closely resembles the word â€Å"fortunate†. This man resembling the word â€Å"fortunate† actually ends up having a very unfortunate death as he is manipulated by Montresor and gets buried alive. Additionally, Fortunato wears a jest costume complete with the cap and bells. This provides early signs that Fortunato is to become a fool. On the other hand, Montresor wears a silk black mask showing the readers that he is indeed the dark, manipulative figure in the story.Another example of irony is how the setting of the story is initially the carnival, and quickly turns into that of the dark, damp, catacombs. All of these examples make the story sound too ironic in a sense, therefore, its credibility is hard to trust. This, along with other ironic events such as the Montresor family crest meaning, â€Å"No one insults me with impunity†(220), and Fortunato drinking a wine named De Grave (grave), proves this story's undependable plot. It can be clearly seen that the narrator provides a recollection of events that are obviously unreliable.The fact that no reason for cause is shown by the narrator, as well as the likelihood of the character playing the narrator being unquestionably insane, proves that the story is unreliable. These factors, in addition to the confusion resulting of endless irony would make any logical reader question the validity of the narrators accounts. A story such as â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado† shows readers that narratives require some sense of background information and that the character narrating should be viewed as logical, in order to be considered reliable.Also, the plot must not be twisted by some sort of other element, such as irony, which was seen in this story. A combination of such factors will allow readers to depict the narrators accounts as an accurate portrayal. References: Baraban, Elena. â€Å"The Motive for Murder in ‘The Cask of Amontillado. † Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 58. 2. (2004): 47-62. Print. Poe, Edger Allan. â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado. † Portable Literature: Reading, Reacting, Writing, Eighth Edition. Ed. Michael Rosenberg. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. 218-223. Print.

Comparison Tom and Gatsby in “The Great Gatsby” Essay

In â€Å"The Great Gatsby,† written by Scott Fitzgerald, Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby are two characters that struggle with the idea of losing their shared love interest, Daisy. Tom and Gatsby’s attachment to Daisy is differently justified due to their contrasting views, personalities, attitudes, actions, backgrounds, and other factors, some of which they do share and concur in. Fitzgerald did a great thing here. He created two purposefully different characters- one that is easily despised, the other that although not perfect, is likable- and united them in their love for money, the power that comes with it , and their haunt for the ultimate prize – Daisy. In this essay, we will analyze Tom and Gatsby’s differences and similarities in several areas, and decide whether or not they are perfect foils of each other like they are commonly perceived to be. To describe who Tom and Gatsby are, we must first analyze where they come from. In this area, Tom Buchannan and Jay Gatsby couldn’t be more different. Tom comes from an old and wealthy Chicago family, hence his residence in East Egg where the old aristocracy of the country’s richest families reside. Tom symbolizes the idea of being born into a golden crib, a prestigious family name, and into old money. Tom is one of those privileged few who never had to work for anything in his life, but is â€Å"privileged† the right description for him? Fitzgerald says in the story, â€Å"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.† Tom’s past never allowed him to learn how to own up to his mistakes, accept fault, and deal with difficult situations, but rather made him unable to adapt to the real world. Because of this, I use the term â€Å"privileged† loosely when describing Tom. On the other hand, Jay Gatsby was born into what some of us call â€Å"the other side of the tracks.† Gatsby faced an impecunious childhood in rural North Dakota, but was an ambitious small town boy with big dreams who thought himself to be superior to the farming life, and simply rejected the lot he had been dealt in life. Gatsby’s father says to the narrator, Nick, â€Å"Jimmy was bound to get ahead†¦ Do you notice what he’s got about improving his mind? He was always great for that†, and that is exactly what Gatsby did.  Gatsby left his home town and set out to find his fortune, and although some of his actions were not too admirable, James Gatz, the poor farm boy, used his ingenuity to reinvent himself and become Jay Gatsby, the self-made millionaire. Fitzgerald makes Gatsby’s residence in West Egg, where the newly rich reside, a place for a class of vulgar and ostentatious people who will always lack the social grace and taste that the r esidents of East Egg possess, and can only be achieved from birth. Although the green light in Daisy’s garden is symbolic for hope, I think it also symbolizes the â€Å"green-eyed monster†. It symbolizes the envy and frustration Gatsby must feel through the realization that even though he achieved an incredible amount of wealth, he will never be an East Egger. Gatsby’s impoverished past makes him unacceptable to this socially elite East Egg society that Tom was born into, and is naturally an accepted part of. Now that we know about their contrasting pasts, let us take a look at their personalities. Tom is an overpowering, large man who uses his presence to intimidate people. It says in the book , â€Å"two shining, arrogant eyes had established dominance over his face and gave him the appearance of always leaning aggressively forward. Not even the effeminate swank of his riding clothes could hide the enormous power of that body†¦it was a body capable of enormous leverage†¦a cruel body.† On the other hand, Gatsby seems to be shy and reserved to the point where he is not even acknowledged at his own parties. In my opinion, Gatsby did not do so well when attempting to pull off a defying front during his confrontation with Tom. Tom also comes off as a racist bigot who fears that the Black race will eventually submerge the White race, a sexist, and an abusive, insensitive, â€Å"brute†, like Daisy calls him. Gatsby’s open house parties which contain very colorful characters, on the other hand, seem to show little prejudice or judgment in his persona. Gatsby’s action of waiting outside the Buchannan’s home all night just to make sure Tom would not physically harm Daisy, show just how sensitive Gatsby is to Daisy’s well being. Tom seems to be very blunt and crude, while Gatsby’s distinguishing feature is the enigma that is his life. Jay Gatsby holds himself to high expectations and lived his life chasing a single dream, while Tom Buchanan seems to have no direction, goals, or dreams, other than to waste away his wealth, and please his selfish needs. In my opinion, the fundamental difference between Tom and Gatsby is how Fitzgerald  decided that justice would be served to each concerning part. Tom is the definition of selfishness, arrogance, cruelty, and ultimately, the ugly side of inherited wealth. Despite all his faults, Gatsby is more good than he is bad, and is a clear rags-to-riches success story. However, Tom ends up getting away scot free, never facing any consequences for his actions or immorality, while Gatsby ends up killed for a crime he did not commit, to save a women who did not love him back. As always, the poor man gets the short end of the stick. Now that we stated some clear differences between Tom and Gatsby, lets look at some of their similarities. Tom and Gatsby are both dishonest and deeply flawed men who commit consistent shows of indiscretions. For example, Tom condemns Daisy’s affair, but does not have the decency to be discreet about his own. Gatsby’s shady business dealings with Wolfsheim and illicit ways of acquiring wealth can, without a doubt, compare to Tom’s unscrupulous character. Both Tom and Gatsby lie and cheat, but Tom does it for the sole purpose of self-indulgence, while Gatsby does what he does in pursuance of his dream. Tom and Gatsby both have controlling personalities, and will do what they can to get what they want, regardless of the consequences. Another similarity between Tom and Gatsby is that both men seem to be playing a role when every they’re in public, by putting on a facade for others to see. With his good looks, education, horses, polo shirts, riding pants, and boots, Tom tries to impress and dissemble others, while hiding the monster he really is. On the same token, the ostentatious parties, mysterious past, and made up stories are all used by Gatsby to hide his hum ble beginnings, and corrupt ways of attaining his wealth. Without a doubt, Gatsby and Tom’s most obvious connection is their link to Daisy. Beautiful, educated, and well groomed, Daisy is the personification of feminism in the 1920’s, and women of an elite social class. Although Daisy is the object of their affection, or better yet, desire, I do not think that either Tom or Gatsby are in love with her. Tom is so pompous, that he married Daisy not because he loved her, but because everyone else wanted her. Tom wants to keep Daisy now because he knows how socially unacceptable divorce would have been, and she looks good under his arm. Gatsby is not so much in love with her, as much as he is with the idea of her. Gatsby places Daisy on this pedestal, and wants her to live up to expectations that she neither can, wants, or deserves. In a way, both Tom and Gatsby see Daisy as  a highly desirable prize that will attest to their own self-worth. In conclusion, because Tom and Gatsby do share some characteristics with each other they may not be â€Å"perfect† foils, but looking at the big picture, they are like oil and water. Tom is a despicable character who embodies everything that is wrong with society, and flies through life unpunished. Gatsby is a man who came from humble beginnings, and made something out of himself for the sole purpose of recuperating the one thing that ever made him feel alive – Daisy. Gatsby lied, cheated, and took part in organized crime, so what can possibly him great, you may ask. Well, in my opinion, Gatsby’s never-ending optimism, simplicity of heart, and power to make his dreams into reality is what makes him â€Å"Great†. In reality, Gatsby never cared for the glamorous parties, the nice clothes, or the fast cars. Acquiring these luxuries were only important to him because he felt like they were necessary for him to accomplish his ultimate goal- winning Daisy’s heart back. Daisy embodied Gatsby’s American dream, and unfortunately for him, his search for her was somewhat more of a fatally romantic idealism that seemed to be best suited in a world of fairy tails and happy endings. I agree with Nick when he tells Gatsby, â€Å"They’re a rotten crowd†¦ you’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.†