Regarding possible influences on thought Essay Example for Free

Regarding possible influences on thought Essay There is an undeniable connection between thought and language. And as thought is so crucial to our knowledge, a study of our language itself is necessary. This essay examines how our language might affect our thought. In doing so, I shall examine the question, what is language?.  So, what is language? Etymologists, those who study language (in how it develops and changes), generally agree that language first started developing thirty thousand to a hundred and fifty thousand years ago. It began when, by an evolutionary chance, the oesophagus moved in human beings. This did two things: firstly it made them very prone to choking (this is often taken as proof that the ability to speak is innate in human beings for if benefits of speech were not developed quickly this should have died out almost immediately in accordance with the theory of evolution) and secondly it dramatically increased the range of sounds they could produce orally. It is thought that the natural calls animals make shrieks of alarm to show danger etc developed and became more complex to form a very basic language. Soon, these developed connotations: variations of alarm calls could be used to convey fear, pain or sadness whilst variations of triumphant calls could be used to show happiness, safety or the location of food. Imitations of the sounds things made also developed: a stream could be indicated by a gurgle, wind by a whoosh and so on. Examples of these two phenomenons continue: laughter and crying is pretty universal in babies whilst young children often refer to police cars as whah whah in an imitation of their sound. Language was further developed, reflecting the need to talk about the speakers environment. A commonly quoted example of this is that the Inuit have twenty words for snow. Not only is this debateable Inuit nouns are formed as in German, where nouns are tacked onto each other but also, English has at least fifty! However, a better example would be the aborigines of Tasmania who have a separate word for every kind of native tree, over two hundred in total, but do not have a word for tree. This is because in their environment, all the trees which surround them appear to be drastically different. It is also said (perhaps somewhat dubiously) that Arabic has approximately six thousand words for camels and camel-equipment. T is doubtless that language is affected in its evolution by our surroundings and our need to communicate about them. The main problems with language can be its vagueness and also the fact that it evolves according to our needs. Language is very vague and words can have myriads of meanings. In the English language, the word set has fifty eight non-obsolete uses as a noun, one hundred and twenty eight as a verb and ten as a participial adjective. The Oxford English Dictionary uses sixty thousand words, including abbreviations and symbols, to define it and set is by no means alone. The fact that language reflects its environment means that when someone has an original thought they often have to come up with an entirely new vocabulary to explain it. An example of this would be the concept of the big bang. When the idea originated, the language used to describe it was completely new and very few understood it. As the theory grew in popularity, its language was accepted into common usage. However, when the majority of the populace does not concern itself with that idea, the vocabulary become jargon, to be known only by experts. Language reflects or needs of it. Written language originated as logograms in the form of pictograms where to write house, one would draw a picture of a house. Soon these became ideograms where, as in language, associations where used e.g. a sun to represent heat. This is the basis of all languages and today can be seen in Chinese and Japanese, as well as the ancient hieroglyphs, Linear A and Linear B. Some languages went one step further, changing from logograms to phonograms. This resulted in syllabic or alphabetic symbols, where words were written using their sounds in spoken language. This was the first link between written and spoken language. Written language, in our society, is now completely dependant on spoken language so the two are often seen as synominous. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis argues that the nature of a particular language influences the habitual thoughts of its speaker. Different patterns of language would therefore lead to different patterns of thought. Thus this challenges that the world can be represented objectively, as language will influence its user. The most extreme supporters of this theory argue that thought is reliant on language and that therefore there can be no thought without language. The twentieth century Austrian philosopher, Wittgenstein says that, because of this, language hinders us. For example, when we say that we saw nobody on the road we have not actually seen nobody. More accurately, we did not see anyone on the road. Another twentieth century philosopher, a Rusiian named Vigotsky, would disagree with this. He held that language helps us to think. He says that the thought is ordered and is clarified by using language. However, a large number of people disagree with the extreme view that thought is impossible without language. Look, they say, at when we are lost for words or the words are on the tip of our tongue: we know what were thinking but cant say it. Another example would be that we can often imagine in our heads as an image something for example, the beginning of the universe but cant describe it. This theory states language is created by thought, although language may later by used as a means through which to think. Many etymologists would agree with this theory as it complies with their theory on how language develops: you see something, you think about it and then you develop language to convey these thoughts and to clarify them. So, our language is shaped by the world around us, and our thoughts are shaped by our language. So our thoughts are influenced, not just out of practicality, but empirically by our surroundings. For if we are not familiar with a concept or object or person then we are unlikely to have the language to describe it: and if we dont have the language then we are unlikely to be able to think about something properly, even if we wished to.

The Sublime Savage: Caliban on Setebos Essay -- Caliban on Setebos Ess

The Sublime Savage: Caliban on Setebos "Caliban my slave, who never / Yields us kind answer." (The Tempest, I.ii.310-1) "Caliban on Setebos" was one of Robert Browning's more popular poems among the Victorians, for its presumed satire of orthodox Calvinism, Puritanism, and similarly grim Christian sects. And Browning as Shakespeare's savage does indeed seem to hurl a few barbs in that direction, but the poet's exercise seems to be as much one in alternative theology. Caliban's bog-bound conjectures, in their significant departures from standard religious doctrine, serve as both an interesting repudiation of Archdeacon Paley's attempts to rationalize God, and as an entertaining 'science-fiction' tale, if you will, of religious thought under alternate circumstances. Caliban is, of course, the "salvage and deformed slave" of Shakespeare's dramatis personae in The Tempest, son of the deceased witch Sycorax, servant of the mage Prospero, consort of and bootlicker for Stephano and Trinculo, failed plotters and drunken buffoons. "As disproportion'd in his manners / As in his shape" (V.i.290-1), he has tried to ravish Prospero's daughter Miranda before being exiled to his cave, and in the course of the play attempts to overthrow Prospero himself and install Stephano on the throne of the island. At last, though, Duke Prospero comes to pardon even Caliban -- "This thing of darkness I / acknowledge mine" (V.i.275-6), and his drudge promises to "be wise hereafter, / and seek for grace" (V.i.294-5) or favor with his master. Browning certainly did his research in crafting the poem: near the end of the work, Caliban cowers under Setebos' "raven that has told... ... in a way, / Taketh his mirth with make-believes" (ll. 168-9). Caliban's easy acceptance of a capricious, often cruel deity, and his willingness to abase himself in penance for irrational divine anger, serves as a satiric reproof to both Paley and the Calvinists, and eloquent support for Browning's more palatable God of love. Shakespeare's Prospero claims that, without his help and education, Caliban "didst not, savage, / Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like / A thing most brutish" (I.ii.357-9). Some of Browning's detractors considered "Caliban on Setebos" still to be brutish, for its harsh language and unpleasant philosophy. Yet the poem is successful in its aim: it is an effective purgative to complacent religious theory, and an entertaining glimpse into a putative religion based on quite different tenets from Victorian Christianity.

The Rise of Antibiotics

The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections by_ Ricki Lewis, Ph. D. _ When penicillin became widely available during the second world war, it was a medical miracle, rapidly vanquishing the biggest wartime killer–infected wounds. Discovered initially by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896, and then rediscovered by Scottish physician Alexander Fleming in 1928, the product of the soil mold Penicillium crippled many types of disease-causing bacteria. But just four years after drug companies began mass-producing penicillin in 1943, microbes began appearing that could resist it. The first bug to battle penicillin was Staphylococcus aureus. This bacterium is often a harmless passenger in the human body, but it can cause illness, such as pneumonia or toxic shock syndrome, when it overgrows or produces a toxin. In 1967, another type of penicillin-resistant pneumonia, caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae and called pneumococcus, surfaced in a remote village in Papua New Guinea. At about the same time, American military personnel in southeast Asia were acquiring penicillin-resistant gonorrhea from prostitutes. By 1976, when the soldiers had come home, they brought the new strain of gonorrhea with them, and physicians had to find new drugs to treat it. In 1983, a hospital-acquired intestinal infection caused by the bacterium Enterococcus faecium joined the list of bugs that outwit penicillin. Antibiotic resistance spreads fast. Between 1979 and 1987, for example, only 0. 02 percent of pneumococcus strains infecting a large number of patients surveyed by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were penicillin-resistant. CDC's survey included 13 hospitals in 12 states. Today, 6. 6 percent of pneumococcus strains are resistant, according to a report in the June 15, 1994, Journal of the American Medical Association by Robert F. Breiman, M. D. , and colleagues at CDC. The agency also reports that in 1992, 13,300 hospital patients died of bacterial infections that were resistant to antibiotic treatment. Why has this happened? â€Å"There was complacency in the 1980s. The perception was that we had licked the bacterial infection problem. Drug companies weren't working on new agents. They were concentrating on other areas, such as viral infections,† says Michael Blum, M. D. , medical officer in the Food and Drug Administration's division of anti-infective drug products. â€Å"In the meantime, resistance increased to a number of commonly used antibiotics, possibly related to overuse of antibiotics. In the 1990s, we've come to a point for certain infections that we don't have agents available. † According to a report in the April 28, 1994, New England Journal of Medicine, researchers have identified bacteria in patient samples that resist all currently available antibiotic drugs. Survival of the Fittest The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits–in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind–or â€Å"selecting,† in biological terms–those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism. The antibiotic does not technically cause the resistance, but allows it to happen by creating a situation where an already existing variant can flourish. â€Å"Whenever antibiotics are used, there is selective pressure for resistance to occur. It builds upon itself. More and more organisms develop resistance to more and more drugs,† says Joe Cranston, Ph. D. , director of the department of drug policy and standards at the American Medical Association in Chicago. A patient can develop a drug-resistant infection either by contracting a resistant bug to begin with, or by having a resistant microbe emerge in the body once antibiotic treatment begins. Drug-resistant infections increase risk of death, and are often associated with prolonged hospital stays, and sometimes complications. These might necessitate removing part of a ravaged lung, or replacing a damaged heart valve. Bacterial Weaponry Disease-causing microbes thwart antibiotics by interfering with their mechanism of action. For example, penicillin kills bacteria by attaching to their cell walls, then destroying a key part of the wall. The wall falls apart, and the bacterium dies. Resistant microbes, however, either alter their cell walls so penicillin can't bind or produce enzymes that dismantle the antibiotic. In another scenario, erythromycin attacks ribosomes, structures within a cell that enable it to make proteins. Resistant bacteria have slightly altered ribosomes to which the drug cannot bind. The ribosomal route is also how bacteria become resistant to the antibiotics tetracycline, streptomycin and gentamicin. How Antibiotic Resistance Happens Antibiotic resistance results from gene action. Bacteria acquire genes conferring resistance in any of three ways. In spontaneous DNA mutation, bacterial DNA (genetic material) may mutate (change) spontaneously (indicated by starburst). Drug-resistant tuberculosis arises this way. In a form of microbial sex called transformation, one bacterium may take up DNA from another bacterium. Pencillin-resistant gonorrhea results from transformation. Most frightening, however, is resistance acquired from a small circle of DNA called a plasmid, that can flit from one type of bacterium to another. A single plasmid can provide a slew of different resistances. In 1968, 12,500 people in Guatemala died in an epidemic of Shigella diarrhea. The microbe harbored a plasmid carrying resistances to four antibiotics! A Vicious Cycle: More Infections and Antibiotic Overuse Though bacterial antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon, societal factors also contribute to the problem. These factors include increased infection transmission, coupled with inappropriate antibiotic use. More people are contracting infections. Sinusitis among adults is on the rise, as are ear infections in children. A report by CDC's Linda F. McCaig and James M. Hughes, M. D. , in the Jan. 18, 1995, Journal of the American Medical Association, tracks antibiotic use in treating common illnesses. The report cites nearly 6 million antibiotic prescriptions for sinusitis in 1985, and nearly 13 million in 1992. Similarly, for middle ear infections, the numbers are 15 million prescriptions in 1985, and 23. 6 million in 1992. Causes for the increase in reported infections are diverse. Some studies correlate the doubling in doctor's office visits for ear infections for preschoolers between 1975 and 1990 to increased use of day-care facilities. Homelessness contributes to the spread of infection. Ironically, advances in modern medicine have made more people predisposed to infection. People on chemotherapy and transplant recipients taking drugs to suppress their immune function are at greater risk of infection. â€Å"There are the number of immunocompromised patients, who wouldn't have survived in earlier times,† says Cranston. â€Å"Radical procedures produce patients who are in difficult shape in the hospital, and are prone to nosocomial [hospital-acquired] infections. Also, the general aging of patients who live longer, get sicker, and die slower contributes to the problem,† he adds. Though some people clearly need to be treated with antibiotics, many experts are concerned about the inappropriate use of these powerful drugs. â€Å"Many consumers have an expectation that when they're ill, antibiotics are the answer. They put pressure on the physician to prescribe them. Most of the time the illness is viral, and antibiotics are not the answer. This large burden of antibiotics is certainly selecting resistant bacteria,† says Blum. Another much-publicized concern is use of antibiotics in livestock, where the drugs are used in well animals to prevent disease, and the animals are later slaughtered for food. â€Å"If an animal gets a bacterial infection, growth is slowed and it doesn't put on weight as fast,† says Joe Madden, Ph. D. , strategic manager of microbiology at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. In addition, antibiotics are sometimes administered at low levels in feed for long durations to increase the rate of weight gain and improve the efficiency of converting animal feed to units of animal production. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine limits the amount of antibiotic residue in poultry and other meats, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture monitors meats for drug residues. According to Margaret Miller, Ph. D. , deputy division director at the Center for Veterinary Medicine, the residue limits for antimicrobial animal drugs are set low enough to ensure that the residues themselves do not select resistant bacteria in (human) gut flora. FDA is investigating whether bacteria resistant to quinolone antibiotics can emerge in food animals and cause disease in humans. Although thorough cooking sharply reduces the likelihood of antibiotic-resistant bacteria surviving in a meat meal to infect a human, it could happen. Pathogens resistant to drugs other than fluoroquinolones have sporadically been reported to survive in a meat meal to infect a human. In 1983, for example, 18 people in four midwestern states developed multi-drug-resistant Salmonella food poisoning after eating beef from cows fed antibiotics. Eleven of the people were hospitalized, and one died. A study conducted by Alain Cometta, M. D. , and his colleagues at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland, and reported in the April 28, 1994, New England Journal of Medicine, showed that increase in antibiotic resistance parallels increase in antibiotic use in humans. They examined a large group of cancer patients given antibiotics called fluoroquinolones to prevent infection. The patients' white blood cell counts were very low as a result of their cancer treatment, leaving them open to infection. Between 1983 and 1993, the percentage of such patients receiving antibiotics rose from 1. 4 to 45. During those years, the researchers isolated Escherichia coli bacteria annually from the patients, and tested the microbes for resistance to five types of fluoroquinolones. Between 1983 and 1990, all 92 E. coli strains tested were easily killed by the antibiotics. But from 1991 to 1993, 11 of 40 tested strains (28 percent) were resistant to all five drugs. Towards Solving the Problem Antibiotic resistance is inevitable, say scientists, but there are measures we can take to slow it. Efforts are under way on several fronts–improving infection control, developing new antibiotics, and using drugs more appropriately. Barbara E. Murray, M. D. , of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston writes in the April 28, 1994, New England Journal of Medicine that simple improvements in public health measures can go a long way towards preventing infection. Such approaches include more frequent hand washing by health-care workers, quick identification and isolation of patients with drug-resistant infections, and improving sewage systems and water purity in developing nations. Drug manufacturers are once again becoming interested in developing new antibiotics. These efforts have been spurred both by the appearance of new bacterial illnesses, such as Lyme disease and Legionnaire's disease, and resurgences of old foes, such as tuberculosis, due to drug resistance. FDA is doing all it can to speed development and availability of new antibiotic drugs. â€Å"We can't identify new agents–that's the job of the pharmaceutical industry. But once they have identified a promising new drug for resistant infections, what we can do is to meet with the company very early and help design the development plan and clinical trials,† says Blum. In addition, drugs in development can be used for patients with multi-drug-resistant infections on an â€Å"emergency IND (compassionate use)† basis, if the physician requests this of FDA, Blum adds. This is done for people with AIDS or cancer, for example. No one really has a good idea of the extent of antibiotic resistance, because it hasn't been monitored in a coordinated fashion. â€Å"Each hospital monitors its own resistance, but there is no good national system to test for antibiotic resistance,† says Blum. This may soon change. CDC is encouraging local health officials to track resistance data, and the World Health Organization has initiated a global computer database for physicians to report outbreaks of drug-resistant bacterial infections. Experts agree that antibiotics should be restricted to patients who can truly benefit from them–that is, people with bacterial infections. Already this is being done in the hospital setting, where the routine use of antibiotics to prevent infection in certain surgical patients is being reexamined. We have known since way back in the antibiotic era that these drugs have been used inappropriately in surgical prophylaxis [preventing infections in surgical patients]. But there is more success [in limiting antibiotic use] in hospital settings, where guidelines are established, than in the more typical outpatient settings,† says Cranston. Murray points out an example of antibiotic prophylaxis in the outpatient setting–children with recurrent ear infections given extended antibiotic prescriptions to prevent future infections. (See â€Å"Protecting Little Pitchers' Ears† in the December 1994 FDA Consumer. Another problem with antibiotic use is that patients often stop taking the drug too soon, because symptoms improve. However, this merely encourages resistant microbes to proliferate. The infection returns a few weeks later, and this time a different drug must be used to treat it. Targeting TB Stephen Weis and colleagues at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth reported in the April 28, 1994, New England Journal of Medicine on research they conducted in Tarrant County, Texas, that vividly illustrates how helping patients to take the full course of their medication can actually lower resistance rates. The subject–tuberculosis. TB is an infection that has experienced spectacular ups and downs. Drugs were developed to treat it, complacency set in that it was beaten, and the disease resurged because patients stopped their medication too soon and infected others. Today, one in seven new TB cases is resistant to the two drugs most commonly used to treat it (isoniazid and rifampin), and 5 percent of these patients die. In the Texas study, 407 patients from 1980 to 1986 were allowed to take their medication on their own. From 1986 until the end of 1992, 581 patients were closely followed, with nurses observing them take their pills. By the end of the study, the relapse rate–which reflects antibiotic resistance–fell from 20. 9 to 5. 5 percent. This trend is especially significant, the researchers note, because it occurred as risk factors for spreading TB–including AIDS, intravenous drug use, and homelessness–were increasing. The conclusion: Resistance can be slowed if patients take medications correctly. Narrowing the Spectrum Appropriate prescribing also means that physicians use â€Å"narrow spectrum† antibiotics–those that target only a few bacterial types–whenever possible, so that resistances can be restricted. The only national survey of antibiotic prescribing practices of office physicians, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, finds that the number of prescriptions has not risen appreciably from 1980 to 1992, but there has been a shift to using costlier, broader spectrum agents. This prescribing trend heightens the resistance problem, write McCaig and Hughes, because more diverse bacteria are being exposed to antibiotics. One way FDA can help physicians choose narrower spectrum antibiotics is to ensure that labeling keeps up with evolving bacterial resistances. Blum hopes that the surveillance information on emerging antibiotic resistances from CDC will enable FDA to require that product labels be updated with the most current surveillance information. Many of us have come to take antibiotics for granted. A child develops strep throat or an ear infection, and soon a bottle of â€Å"pink medicine† makes everything better. An adult suffers a sinus headache, and antibiotic pills quickly control it. But infections can and do still kill. Because of a complex combination of factors, serious infections may be on the rise. While awaiting the next â€Å"wonder drug,† we must appreciate, and use correctly, the ones that we already have. {draw:rect} Big Difference If this bacterium could be shown four times bigger, it would be the right relative size to the virus beneath it. Both are microscopic and are shown many times larger than life. ) Although bacteria are single-celled organisms, viruses are far simpler, consisting of one type of biochemical (a nucleic acid, such as DNA or RNA) wrapped in another (protein). Most biologists do not consider viruses to be living things, but instead, infectious particles. Antibiotic drugs attack bacteria, not viruses. {draw:rect} *The Greatest Fe ar–Vancomycin* Resistance When microbes began resisting penicillin, medical researchers fought back with chemical cousins, such as methicillin and oxacillin. By 1953, the antibiotic armamentarium included chloramphenicol, neomycin, terramycin, tetracycline, and cephalosporins. But today, researchers fear that we may be nearing an end to the seemingly endless flow of antimicrobial drugs. At the center of current concern is the antibiotic vancomycin, which for many infections is literally the drug of â€Å"last resort,† says Michael Blum, M. D. , medical officer in FDA's division of anti-infective drug products. Some hospital-acquired staph infections are resistant to all antibiotics except vancomycin. Now vancomycin resistance has turned up in another common hospital bug, enterococcus. And since bacteria swap resistance genes like teenagers swap T-shirts, it is only a matter of time, many microbiologists believe, until vancomycin-resistant staph infections appear. â€Å"Staph aureus may pick up vancomycin resistance from enterococci, which are found in the normal human gut,† says Madden. And the speed with which vancomycin resistance has spread through enterococci has prompted researchers to use the word â€Å"crisis† when discussing the possibility of vancomycin-resistant staph. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci were first reported in England and France in 1987, and appeared in one New York City hospital in 1989. By 1991, 38 hospitals in the United States reported the bug. By 1993, 14 percent of patients with enterococcus in intensive-care units in some hospitals had vancomycin-resistant strains, a 20-fold increase from 1987. A frightening report came in 1992, when a British researcher observed a transfer of a vancomycin-resistant gene from enterococcus to Staph aureus in the laboratory. Alarmed, the researcher immediately destroyed the bacteria. Ricki_ Lewis is a geneticist and textbook author. _ {draw:rect} FDA Consumer magazine (September 1995)

2nd Amendment Paper

When I think about the dreams of the founders I think about the amendments. These amendments represented their core beliefs. When I think about that I look at society and think how well have the amendments been followed. In a sense most of the amendments have been followed well, but in the last 20 or 30 years that has been declining rapidly. The 1st amendment, probably the easiest to follow is being silently fought. Now it may not be illegal to say something but by the time you say it you might have wished it was.People are beat to a bloody pulp because their opinion of the president, or even worse their favorite sports team. What has this nation come to when we beat a living person to a bloody pulp for the sports team that they like! I think we need to take a step back and look at ourselves for a second. The 2nd amendment is our first freedom. For the last 100 years people have slowly been trying to tax and regulate our right and freedom to bear arms. The 2nd amendment states that t heir should be a militia ready for times of war. It does not say an army, a militia.If I remember correctly the definition of militia is a military force raised by civilians to take place of an army in an emergency. Now how are we supposed to act like a military force, if the law abiding citizens of this country cannot buy a basic infantryman's rifle. Yes you can buy a modified version, but we should be able to buy any type of firearm we would like, because it is our right and our freedom. This amendment isn't about no duck hunting. It's about the people's right, freedom, and ability to protect themselves and their country. The 3rd amendment Is our freedom of religion.In this day and age christianity is frowned upon, at the time of our founders christianity represented the core belief system of almost every man, woman, and child. Nowadays you have atheists making it illegal to display any signs of religion, you want to put a nativity scene in front of your house, so sorry you probab ly need a permit for that, or its against your city ordnance. You want to have a christmas party at the local town/city green, no problem, only you need to call it a winter party, winter holiday party, or non denominational festive celebration, pretty insane.To make matters worse we have a president, a president the leader of a country whose motto is â€Å"IN GOD WE TRUST† is supporting the beliefs of Islam, a country who believes that America is satan. You know its bad when we have a muslim president. The constitution has been changed and twisted so much that I bet the founders are doing backflips in their graves. In a society were the sacred organization of marriage is being laughed at and challenged day to day, this isn't just a political challenge its a virtue, and morality challenge as well.This country was founded on good, christian values and after the influence of God and the Holy Ghost. Christopher Columbus talks about a calm and spiritual feeling coming over him as he studied his maps and sailed on the open waters. There is no question that God had a hand in the founding of this country. At the time of Columbus, Asia had all the necessary means and resources to sail to the new world, and almost did. But Columbus did first and opened the path for God's country, the light set on a hill.When this countries core belief system is attacked we must defend it, and if it fails we are in deep trouble. The day we take God out of everything is the day we are utterly and absolutely screwed. The founders knew that God must be at the center of our lives and that we must show Godlike attributes for this country to succeed, the amendments did a pretty good job of following the ten commandments if you think about it, for example the 2nd amendment may have something to do with those commandments that talk about coveting, and stealing?Although there are things wrong with America, and although it is painful to say there are a lot of things wrong but at then end of the day this is still the place, the Country chosen above all other countries to be an ensign unto all nations. To be the place where that great Lord Jesus the Christ will return again, where every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Although we may be going through some rough times in America we must see the light at the end of the tunnel. When Thomas Jefferson said that there must be a separation of church and state I don't think he realized what trouble he would cause years down the road.People now think that that statement means that we must take God out of all Politics and Government, the people who believe this are sadly and utterly WRONG. The statement that Thomas Jefferson made in a letter to a friend, not even in the Constitution, stated that we must not allow the Government control the Church, and not allow the Church to control the Government. We now see what happens when people take things out of context. This country is a beautiful one and still offers more than a ny other country in the world, but that is slowly decaying, and we are rapidly becoming more and more like, other countries in the world.We must return to the founders first dream, illustrated in the amendments and expressed in their letters and personal documents. We must not remove God from our lives, when we do we decay morally and spiritually and we as a society will slowly but surely spiral out of control. God still loves us and this country. He loves us no matter what, and though we may be going through a rough time in America's history, it will all be for our profit and learning, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and boy it is a bright and glorious one.This is his country, he inspired Columbus in his studying to find this country. He inspired the founders, to go against the tight grip of England, and write a constitution and declare independence. He inspired the writers and signers of the declaration of independence, to defy a nation and become an even stronger natio n, full of love, and freedom. Now in this our darkest time we abandon our God, yet we need to remember that he has not abandoned us. The founders knew that a day would come when the constitution would be challenged, now its up to us as a nation to defend their dream.We must not give up as a nation, or even as individuals, at the end of the day there is no collective salvation, we must teach our families and our children the correct way of living, a Godlike way of living. We must try first to show faith, hope and charity to ourselves, and then our family, before we can try it as a nation. That is what we need, faith, hope, and charity. That was what the founders wanted to tell us. We must show faith hope and charity. No free government hand-outs.

First Stand Essays - Homelessness, Humanitarian Aid, Socioeconomics

First Stand Essays - Homelessness, Humanitarian Aid, Socioeconomics First Stand Many issues plague the world today. Questions arrive about how people should live, who should control the most power, and many other questions that Americans have spent all their lives trying to answer. This isn?t an essay where I try to answer all those questions, but how I stand on certain issues like war, wealth, social status, education and finally technology. All those issues get even larger where even more questions arise. Those 3 sections are Political, Social, and Economical. War covers many issues of wars being prevented and how wars should be dealt with. Wealth is all about people who earn the money and people who just inherit it while social status is all about how people live their lives at different ranks. Education, everyone needs it to get a halfway descent life today. Technology will be the most important in the future because it could be the answer to most of our problems. The single word that most Americans know and sometimes fear is WAR. It hurts, maims, and kills millions of Americans. And why are wars started? Because some power hungry dictator wants more space, money or natural recourses. I think that a lot of the wars that we have had in countries could have been prevented. Especially with all the new technology we have today. Back when it was George Washington leading his troops there probably wasn?t anything that could have stopped that. I think most of the violence in wars can be prevented by just sitting down and looking at all the problems and what the different countries want. If two sides are at war I think it is the United States? responsibility to get between those two sides and stop them from going to war. If the two sides are stronger than the U.S then the U.S should stand down. Then and ONLY then. Some people say that God made us a violent species but I don?t believe that. If God made man a violent species, then how could we h! ave achieved peace and prevented many wars? How could we join in allegiances with our neighbors? If we could just set aside all the things that make us different, we could stop all the violence at once. The violence over the seas and the violence on the streets. Every country is always either preparing for war, having a war, or recovering for war. Some people that analyze wars say that war is a way of keeping the population down. I think this is a pretty dumb idea but it does have its good sides. Just like any other topic War has it?s ups and downs. Some people say that this next topic makes the world go ?round. Money, and the distribution of wealth. Most people in the U.S are middle class, and in the world most are lower class like in countries in Bosnia and Serbia where everyone is suffering. However a lot of people that just inherit all the gold and riches don?t do anything whatsoever to earn the money. Princess Diana for instance, she came from a poor family and just happened to get lucky that prince Charles liked her. Since some people are a lot better off than others I think that the people with more money should be taxed more heavily than the people with out a lot of money. If everyone is taxed the same, then the people with a lot of money will still live great but the people with no money are going to go even lower in the money status classes. A lot of the people that live in big industrial cities like San Francisco say that all the homeless people lying around in the parks and other places are very inconvenient.! It makes the city look trashier than it really is. People from out of state look at these great looking cities on postcards and want to go there but then once they are there they look around and see homelessness and trash littering the ground. I think that the homeless are on the street because they gambled their lives away. The government shouldn?t be giving them any extra tax dollars just for being homeless, they should

How Neil Armstrong Became the First Man on the Moon

How Neil Armstrong Became the First Man on the Moon For thousands of years, man had looked to the heavens and dreamed of walking on the moon. On July 20,  1969, as part of the Apollo 11 mission, Neil Armstrong became the very first to accomplish that dream, followed only minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Their accomplishment placed the United States ahead of the Soviets in the Space Race and gave people around the world the hope of future space exploration. Fast Facts: First Moon Landing Date: July 20, 1969Mission: Apollo 11Crew: Neil Armstrong, Edwin Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins Becoming the First Person on the Moon When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the United States was surprised to find themselves behind in the race to space. Still behind the Soviets four years later, President John F. Kennedy gave inspiration and hope  to the American people in his speech to Congress on May 25, 1961 in which he stated, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. Just eight years later, the United States accomplished this goal by placing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon. Portrait of American astronauts, from left, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and Neil Armstrong, the crew of NASAs Apollo 11 mission to the moon, as they pose on a model of the moon, 1969. Ralph Morse / Getty Images Take Off At 9:32 a.m. on July 16, 1969, the Saturn V rocket launched Apollo 11 into the sky from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. On the ground, there were over 3,000 journalists, 7,000 dignitaries, and approximately a half million tourists watching this momentous occasion. The event went smoothly and as scheduled. CAPE KENNEDY, UNITED STATES - JULY 16, 1969: Composite 5 frame shot of the gantry retracting while the Saturn V boosters lift off to carry the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Moon.   Ralph Morse / Getty Images After one-and-a-half orbits around Earth, the Saturn V thrusters flared once again and the crew had to manage the delicate process of attaching the lunar module (nicknamed Eagle) onto the nose of the joined command and service module (nicknamed Columbia). Once attached, Apollo 11 left the Saturn V rockets behind as they began their three-day journey to the moon, called the translunar coast. A Difficult Landing On July 19, at 1:28 p.m. EDT, Apollo 11 entered the moons orbit. After spending a full day in lunar orbit, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin boarded the lunar module and detached it from the command module for their descent to the moons surface. As the Eagle departed, Michael Collins, who remained in the Columbia while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the moon, checked for any visual problems with the lunar module. He saw none and told the Eagle crew, You cats take it easy on the lunar surface. Members of the Kennedy Space Center control room team rise from their consoles to see the liftoff of the Apollo 11 mission 16 July 1969.   NASA / Getty Images As the Eagle headed toward the moons surface, several different warning alarms were activated. Armstrong and Aldrin realized that the computer system was guiding them to a landing area that was strewn with boulders the size of small cars. With some last-minute maneuvers, Armstrong guided the lunar module to a safe landing area. At 4:17 p.m. EDT on July 20, 1969, the landing module landed on the moons surface in the Sea of Tranquility with only seconds of fuel left. Armstrong reported to the command center in Houston, Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed. Houston responded, Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. Were breathing again. Walking on the Moon After the excitement, exertion, and drama of the lunar landing, Armstrong and Aldrin spent the next six-and-a-half hours resting and then preparing themselves for their moon walk. At 10:28 p.m. EDT, Armstrong turned on the video cameras. These cameras transmitted images from the moon to over half a billion people on Earth who sat watching their televisions. It was phenomenal that these people were able to witness the amazing events that were unfolding hundreds of thousands of miles above them. This grainy, black-and-white image taken on the Moon shows Neil Armstrong about to step off the Eagle lander and onto the surface of the Moon for the first time. NASA   Neil Armstrong was the first person out of the lunar module. He climbed down a ladder and then became the first person to set foot on the moon at 10:56 p.m. EDT. Armstrong then stated, Thats one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. A few minutes later, Aldrin exited the lunar module and stepped foot on the moons surface. Working on the Surface Although Armstrong and Aldrin got a chance to admire the tranquil, desolate beauty of the moons surface, they also had a lot of work to do. NASA had sent the astronauts with a number of scientific experiments to set up and the men were to collect samples from the area around their landing site. They returned with 46 pounds of moon rocks. Armstrong and Aldrin also set up a flag of the United States. Armstrong and Aldrin unfurl the US flag on the moon, 1969. Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, was launched on 16 July 1969 and Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin became the first and second men to walk on the moon on 20 July 1969. The third member of the crew, Michael Collins, remained in lunar orbit. Oxford Science Archive / Getty Images While on the moon, the astronauts received a call from President Richard Nixon. Nixon began by saying, Hello, Neil and Buzz. I am talking to you by telephone from the Oval Office of the White House. And this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made. I just cant tell you how proud we are of what you have done. Time to Leave After spending 21 hours and 36 minutes upon the moon (including 2 hours and 31 minutes of outside exploration), it was time for Armstrong and Aldrin to leave. To lighten their load, the two men threw out some excess materials like backpacks, moon boots, urine bags, and a camera. These fell to the moons surface and were to remain there. Also left behind was a plaque which read, Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the moon. July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind. Apollo 11 lunar module rising above the moon to rendezvous with command module before heading home, with half Earth visible over horizon in background. Time Life Pictures / NASA / Getty Images   The lunar module blasted off from the moons surface at 1:54 p.m. EDT on July 21, 1969. Everything went well and the Eagle re-docked with the Columbia. After transferring all of their samples onto the Columbia, the Eagle was set adrift in the moons orbit. The Columbia, with all three astronauts back on board, then began their three-day journey back to Earth. Splash Down Before the Columbia command module entered the Earths atmosphere, it separated itself from the service module.  When the capsule reached 24,000 feet, three parachutes deployed to slow down the Columbias descent. At 12:50 p.m. EDT on July 24, the Columbia safely landed in the Pacific Ocean, southwest of Hawaii. They landed just 13 nautical miles from the U.S.S. Hornet that was scheduled to pick them up. astronauts wait in life raft for a helicopter to lift them to the U.S.S. Hornet after successful splashdown July 24th. Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin successfully completed moon mission. Theyre wearing isolation garments.   Bettmann / Getty Images Once picked up, the three astronauts were immediately placed into quarantine for fears of possible moon germs. Three days after being retrieved, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins were transferred to a quarantine facility in Houston for further observation. On August 10, 1969, 17 days after splashdown, the three astronauts were released from quarantine and able to return to their families. The astronauts were treated like heroes on their return. They were met by President Nixon and given ticker-tape parades. These men had accomplished what men had only dared to dream for thousands of years- to walk on the moon.

Critical Appraisal of Business Planning Process Essay - 1

Critical Appraisal of Business Planning Process - Essay Example This report describes the importance of strategy, market research and analysis, financials, competitive strategy and generating ideas as fundamental outcomes of proper business planning. Idea generation and strategy External market conditions change rapidly in certain industries, thus driving a need for innovation in order to compete with other businesses operating in the same market environment. Products and services both from an entrepreneurial business and the competitive environment have a specific life cycle by which it generates profitability and consumer adoption patterns. A product or service will move from growth to maturity, a period where sales decline and thus new product development becomes a critical internal activity of the organisation. This is why generating new ideas becomes a paramount objective in the planning process, usually requiring the input of executive leadership and managers to determine how best to introduce a new product whilst still recognising costs. I n generating new product ideas, the business leadership must determine whether compromises will be made, opportunity costs or trade-offs, in order to launch a new product or service on the market. ... Innovations, however, are critical to maintaining a stable market position. Strategy formulation determines the objectives necessary to achieve a long-term market position. Strategy defines sustainability over the long-run or whether growth is an expectation related to revenue-building. An entrepreneurial dimension of strategy is persisting to find a better fit in the competitive market or developing a vision by which the organisation founds its values and organisational structure against (Majumdar 2008). Developing a long-term orientation is necessary in business planning as it determines the strategic direction the business intends to pursue and thus resources are allocated toward meeting this purpose. Market analysis and competitive strategy Michael Porter identifies five competitive forces that impact business success, including threat of new entrants, the availability of substitute products, supplier and buyer power in the market, and concerns over what types of competitive stra tegies are being developed by other businesses operating in the same market (Porter 2010). It is necessary to scan the external environment in order to understand what socio-economic and socio-cultural trends are observable in key target markets in order to develop a service or product plan designed to properly fit these attitudes or financial predictors. Market analysis identifies all of the fundamental hindrances or advantages that are linked to strategic intention and competitive strategy, thus the planning process must include market research. Businesses that are heavily reliant on consumer revenues must understand what drives buyer behaviour, and this is best performed through surveys, questionnaires or focus groups. Consumers either favour or disapprove of a particular