Book Memo Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Book Memo - Essay Example Immigrants usually migrate from place to place until they get to the place that is most suitable to them, while settlers would remain fixed and would try to make things better for themselves in the region they reside. Undocumented immigrants come to the United States and some other major nations of the world in search of better life considering the fact that these countries are more developed than their native country (Kivisto & Faist). The immigrants would first be separated from their loved ones and this is usually difficult for them, considering the fact that they had a sort of emotional attachment to these people. Transition is the experience that the immigrants have when they enter and become a member of a particular society. Incorporation is the phase that the immigrant identifies with the new community they migrate to and this does not mean they have to accept the values of this community. And this is just like the rite of passage as it takes place when someone makes a reasona ble progress by changing from one status to another (Kivisto & Faist). One question this that should be asked is that: what are the reasons that some immigrants, both the documented and the undocumented ones chose to reside permanently in the United States of America and some other major nations. Work Cited Kivisto, Peter, & Faist, Thomas. Beyond a Border: The Causes and Consequences of Contemporary Immigration.

Evil, its symbols and the environment Essay 2 Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Evil, its symbols and the environment 2 - Essay Example Two rebel groups clashed against the Sudanese government because of its neglect of Darfur and its citizens, Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) (sometimes also called Liberation and Justice Movement) and Sudan Liberation Army (SLA). The Sudanese government unleashed an attack against the rebel forces and the ordinary citizens in the city were just collateral damage. Men, women, and children of all ages were murdered on both sides of the conflict (Reuters). Though at present the atrocities in Darfur have somewhat ceased, the harrowing events that went before were enough to leave the community in despair and disarray. The best symbol I can associate to the conflict in Darfur is the balance. As defined in J. C. Cooper’s work, the balance symbolizes â€Å"justice; impartiality; judgment; man’s merits and demerits weighed. The equilibrium of all opposites and complementaries†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (26). The warring parties think that the balance of justice and power are tipped agains t their side that is why they sacrifice countless lives to try and tip it in their favor. In thus struggle, the community pays the price. According to Barbara Coloroso, genocide is an experience of evil which shatters human communities. In this paper, I would like to present how genocide wrecks communities through three different perspectives: through the eyes of the Sudanese government, the eyes of the rebels, and through the eyes of the common citizen. Then I will try to draw conclusions from these differing perspectives in light of being a student of religion and culture – gleaning practical and philosophical lessons and insights from the experience of those that have witnessed and participated in the genocide at Darfur. The Perspective of the Sudanese Government Strong yet compassionate leadership is essential for a community to progress. Darfur became a territory of Sudan in 1916 and for more than a century, everything was relatively peaceful though there were insurgent groups that wanted to restore Darfur as an independent state (O’Fahey). The attack of the rebel forces against the government of Sudan was not tolerated because tolerance would be seen a sign of weakness. And so the bloody war and genocide started on 2003 continuing until the present with the fighting spreading to neighboring countries like Chad and the Central African Republic (Hentoff). The issue of trust. As the leaders of the community, it is expected that a country’s government will protect its territory and will most likely extinguish any flames of insurgency so as to unite its people and keep them safe. But communities are first and foremost built on trust. If the government doubts members of its citizenry and brands them as rebels and insurgents, then they will not be able to uphold their responsibility as protectors and mediators for peace. One of the government’s responsibilities is to uphold justice but in Darfur’s case, the line between good c itizens just trying to make those who are in power see that they have been neglected, and those that just want to destabilize the rule got blurred. Thus, whom will the government protect? Who can they trust? The issue of â€Å"the greater good†. Part of the responsibilities in leading a community is making tough and unpopular decisions. UN estimates that at least 300,000 people have died because of the atrocities in Darfur (Reuters). That is just .08% of the 37.2

Ellen Moore Working in Korea Essay Example for Free

Ellen Moore Working in Korea Essay Ellen Moore has been assigned to a project in South Korea. The project is a joint venture (JVI) between Western Systems Inc. (WSI), a North American company and Korean Conglomerate Inc. (KCI), a Korean company. Ellen was chosen to run the project on behalf of Andrew Kilpatrick, who is part of the System Consulting group at WSI. Andrew was to manage the project on a part time basis from North America. He chose Ellen to lead project on site as a result of her strengths in project management. Andrew also felt that Ellen’s previous success working in Bahrain showed that she would be able to handle the cultural differences. Andrew was aware of the culture difference in Korea and before he sent Ellen he was assured by American consultants that as long as Ellen was qualified for the position she would be accepted. Andrew wanted to consult the Korean consultants on this matter but was assured by the American consultants that is would be ok. In addition to Ellen, Scott Adams would also join Ellen a few months after her arrival in Korea. What Ellen experiences throughout her time in Korea does not suggest that the Korean consultants are ok with her being a woman. Why is Ellen a successful manager? The following characteristics seen in the case make Ellen a great manager/leader: * Competitive Highly Motivated – Without these she wouldn’t have gotten so far so fast. Both of these characteristics are why she graduated high school at 16. Ellen loves to learn; a great example of this is her learning the Korean language as she sits in traffic traveling home from work even though she is exhausted, by reading the signs. * Teacher – She enjoys teaching and does so whenever the opportunity presents itself. Her natural leadership qualities show when after her short period of working with the group in Jack’s absence you see members of the team sticking by Ellen when this wasn’t the case prior to Jack’s absence. They are naturally following her. * Compassionate/great mentor- Ellen is a natural leader, this is evident when she finally gets her chance to work with the group while Jack Kim is away. Upon return he finds them questioning what he wants stating that they are doing something for Ellen. * Assertive- Assertive but no so aggressive as too turn others off. * Self Confidence- Ellen always exudes confidence. One particular example of this at the dinner with Jack and other colleagues. Jack asked the translator to not translate for Ellen, the translator is fearful of losing her job if she tells Ellen why, so Ellen interrupts Jack’s speech saying the translator is having a hard time hearing him rather than sitting there letting his show continue. * Respectful but not passive – She tries to understand why her fellow workers do certain things by asking questions of them to help her understand. An example of this is when she questions the ill Korean worker who refuses to leave until his boss does even though his work is complete. She illustrates respect for his values but tries to show him there are alternatives. What would you advise Ellen to do and why? Before advising Ellen it is crucial to understand why she has experienced the conflicts she has in Korea. Koreans are more influenced by Confucian ways than any other business culture including China. So what does that mean? * It is important to make a friend first before a client, Koreans need to have this relationship built so that you’ll be trustworthy, honorable and respectable to them. They value family and similar relations a great deal. * Korean companies are vertically hierarchal; decisions are made at the top and delegated downwards. Age alone can dictate seniority regardless of skills and previous achievement. * Confucian values stresses obedience and loyalty. In return for this obedience and loyalty a manager provides the support needed by subordinates. * It is important to have relationships established before holding meetings, in fact initial time spent in meetings is generally to develop such relations. This will establish your honorableness, it is important to do some research so that you who the more senior contacts are to show them respect. It is also important to have the right levels at a meeting a more senior level person would not be expected to meet with less experienced individuals from other organizations. * Confrontation is not a good thing, Koreans work well in comfortable environments and when it isn’t this, they will flounder and become uncooperative. This stems from their family virtues they like harmony. Although Koreans like harmony they can become quite emotional, likely as a result extreme hardship they have experienced in the past. If a Korean is quiet in a meeting it is a good sign that the meeting is floundering. * Koreans do not like â€Å"no† as an answer. You must listen for subtle clues that they are not happy they will not voice their objections loudly. If you are trying to persuade them it is very important to remain calm and polite at all times. * Gift giving is important. If traveling to Korea you should have a number of small wrapped gifts to distribute. A good bottle of alcohol is a popular gift. * Dress is important as well as body language. Slouching or over exaggerated body language would cause concern on their part. Proper dress would be dark suit with ties for men and no trousers for women. * The role of women in Korean business is evolving but is still highly influenced their previous values. Women are seen as being inferior to men, they often hold low level positions and rarely succeed. A woman from another country can be accepted but it’s likely they will not receive the respect that a man would. Koreans do not react well to confrontation and it is crucial that you build a relationship of trust with them. It is clear from the case that Andrew reaching out to Mr. Song sent him to talk to Mr. Park before he’d meet with Andrew, most likely to get his stance on the issues first. Korea has a strong since of family and Mr. Song as a result will most likely take the side of Jack and Mr. Park. Given this and now the confrontation between Mr. Song and Andrew I feel there are two options available to WSI, which Ellen should suggest. One is to have Ellen move on to a new project and either Andrew or her colleague Scott Adams become the co-manager along with Jack Kim. This will require time to repair the relations between KCI and WSI but if they want to continue on in Korea than this is their best option. They likely will need to make concessions to the Korean’s and the project will be considerably extended both on a financial realm and time. The second option is to walk away from the assignment. As noted in the case, Andrew and his managers viewed this as a favor to WSI and really had no plans of developing their business in Korea. I think that the first option is the best; failure or walking away could be detrimental to business for WSI and although SCG’s group itself wasn’t planning on doing business in Korea they are a part of WSI and therefore have a stake in the JVI success. Leaving the project would not only cost them their position of the leading system implementation in Korea but their reputation which would cost them other business opportunities as well hurt future growth. Andrew and his managers will need to work with Mr. Scott and Mr.  Park to assure the relations are established this will involve a lot of schmoozing. They will have to accept a longer project line as a result. With the proper strategy and patience I believe they will be able to build a relationship with the Korean group and have a success in the end. Of course, this would not involve any women within the WSI group. For Ellen, I believe she is better off convincing them to move her to another project. Given her objectives below she really doesn’t have much to lose from leaving the project and a considerable amount more to gain by moving to a new assignment. She is an expatriate and therefore should expect to stay on any project or any job for a long period of time. What are her objectives? Are these objectives and actions consistent with what you would do if you were in her situation? Ellen objectives are: * Run a successful project and have it succeed and accomplish what they had set out too. This is not only because she feels she has an investment in the project but also will help her career the better she does the better she looks. * Try to gain experience to propel her to her next endeavor. Try to get along with Jack Kim to help the project but also because it will help her be more involved with the others on the projects so she can lead/mentor them. * Learn as much about the South Korean culture as possible and coexist within this environment. * Ellen is an expatriate so she is also trying to make her time with the company as pleasant as possible in addition to achieving the goals set out by the project. * Ultimately, Career growth Ellen’s objectives are consistent with what mine would be if I were in her position. I also believe her actions and what I have advised her to do going forward is what I would also do. That being said, I feel the issue was more a lack of preparation before going to Korea. The team from North American did not take the time to build the relationships needed so that they could be successful in meetings and lead the consultants in Korea. Although Andrew expressed the need to assure the Korean consultants were alright with Ellen being a woman this did not happen. I believe that if they were consulted they might have been more receptive of Ellen. If for no other reason than the mere consulting would of help formed a relationship, started some camaraderie between the North Americans and the Koreans. Additionally, adequate preparation would of prepared Ellen for what she would likely encounter. Had she had this knowledge maybe there were different actions she should of taken during her work there. I stress the maybe; it seems to me she handled herself quite well. Finally, I am all for women rights but businesses need to succeed and in this case maybe the mere fact that Ellen was a woman disqualified her for this particular assignment.

Should We Establish A Market For Human Organs?

Should We Establish A Market For Human Organs? There are a number of arguments with regards to organ commodification, which is the subject of hot debate. I will purposefully be limiting the scope of the argument to kidneys, as kidneys are paired organs that can be safely removed with minimal impact to the health of the donor. Although this topic is heavily related to philosophical and ethical issues, I would first like to discuss certain relevant aspects of background information with regards to a few simple and basic economic concepts, specifically related to supply and demand as it relates to the buying and selling of organs in an economic forum. The fact is that there are sick people who will die without transplants, and the number of organs available through donation, whether live donations from friends, relatives, or anonymous persons or donations through the harvest of organs from people who die, fall far short of the required number. This raises the question whether it is justifiable to provide financial incentives for org an donors to donate their kidneys in order to help narrow the gap between excess demand and shortage in supply. A variety of concerns and arguments have been raised regarding whether a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys should exist. Many countries, including Singapore, still prohibit the sale of human organs. In the United States, the National Organ Transplant Act officially bans the selling of human organs. Would such a legal market encourage an increase in black market activities, as some individuals in dire need of organs might not be able to afford the price on the legal market? I will discuss the reasons why a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys should exist. Some contend that allowing kidneys to be commodified would cheapen our humanity. I believe, however, that the intrinsic value of our humanity would not be cheapened even if we were to put a price tag on our organs, as such a price would only signify that we are trading kidneys at a s pecific rate. Finally, I will address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding commodifying other human organs and body parts, such as the heart, hair, and blood. I will conclude with the assertion that a legal market could mitigate the large number of black market activities that already exist, and that commodification would in no way devalue our humanity or our culture of liberty, but would rather place a greater value on freedom by demonstrating a respect for individuals rational choices regarding kidney donation. Introduction Before getting into the heart of the argument about whether there should be a legal system established for allowing commodification of organs, I would first like to draw on literature from Gill and Sade in order to address a few preliminary points. The pro-market argument we will be considering is a prima facie argument which, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to support the permissibility of the practice. On the other hand, the reason Im purposefully limiting the scope of the argument to kidneys is because the kidney is paired organ that can be safely removed with the minimal impact of the health of the donor. Here is a quick background behind the argument: It is that there are sick people who will die without a transplant and that the number that becomes available through donation either live or cadaveric fall far short of the numbers that are required. In many countries, thousands of candidates on organ transplant waiting lists die each year due to the lack of donor availability. According to the U.S. Department of Health Human Services, there are currently 86,445 people waiting for kidney transplantation, while only 7,000 people are available as kidney donors. This huge shortage of organs has led to a thriving black market trade in human organs, especially kidneys. People who advocate legalization believe that selling their organs might create a solution to the shortage; additionally, sellers make generous financial gains from the sale of organs. Therefore, a market solution, one where people are given a financial incentive to part with their organs, would procure more of them than a d onation-only scheme and narrow the gap between supply and demand. Because black market trade has become so widespread, some concerns and hot debates have been raised regarding whether there should be a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys. Many countries, including Singapore, still prohibit the sale of human organs. In United States, the National Organ Transplant Act officially bans the selling of human organs. This essay will discuss why there should be a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys. A legal market could mitigate the black market activities that already exist, and commodification would not devalue our humanity or our culture of liberty; rather, it would place a greater value on freedom by respecting individuals rational choices regarding kidney donation. According to Gill and Sade, the prima facie pro-market argument addresses two points: first, donation is permissible. It is, and ought to be legal for a living person to donate a kidney to someone else who needs one in order to survive. From its point of view, we actually dont just allow people to do this. However, we praise and encourage this. In Singapore, the government makes it harder than other countries not to donate. Citizens are presumed to be organ donors and have to opt out, rather than the reverse. In either case, though, donation is typically taken to be a case of saving a human life and morally unproblematic. It implies that it should be legal for a living person to decide to transfer one of his or her kidneys to someone else. Second, commodification of tissue is permissible, according to Gill and Sade. It is, and ought to be, legal for a living person to buy and/ or sell certain body tissues such as hair, sperm, eggs, blood products, etc. For instance, the Singapore Cord Blood Bank (SCBB) has facilitated over 40 cord blood transplants according to Cord Blood Bank of Singapore (for the SCBB, cord blood is donated but then sold to recipients, unless the recipient was also a donor). In other countries, though, people who give blood are financially compensated. Of course we would not typically praise people who sell their body tissue as we do people who donate it to save a life, but, at the same time, most people do not brand commercial blood banks as moral abominations, rather than an acceptable means of procuring a resource that is needed to save lives. It implies that it should be legal for a living person to decide to transfer part of his or her body to someone else for money. As a result, it thus seems i nitially plausible to hold that the two claims together imply that it should be legal for a living person to decide to transfer one of his or her kidneys to someone else for money. There are some responses, according to Gill and Sades literature, to the prima facie argument. First of all, the argument attempts to establish a moral difference between selling and donating. One thinks that commodification of body parts is wrong in itself because if one commodify oneself by selling oneself or part of oneself as a mere means which is as an object to be used, bought and sold for a price. It is thus disrespectful of ones humanity to treat oneself as a mere means as it cheapens us and takes away from the meaning and significance of humanity. Therefore, commodifying oneself violates a duty one has to oneself to respect what makes us morally significant creatures. Secondly, commodification of body parts leads to undesirable social consequences, according to Julia Mahoney. We would view others as commodities rather than as persons, according to Kass. We dont have to say that this is intrinsically wrong, but it would definitely affect the quality of social life. One may ar gue that legalizing kidney sales would promote an everything-is-for-sale mentality that will lead to the degeneration of civil society. It may make it more likely that we would legalize live-donor heart sales in the future, or it may promote a mindset where people are more commercial minded, and less generous, loving or friendly to each other. Thirdly, commodification of body parts unjustifiably infringes upon the freedom of certain people. As a result, some suggest that prohibiting commodification is necessary to protect certain liberties, according to Wolf. Criminalizing kidney sales infringes upon the freedom of potential buyers and sellers, but it protects the freedom of donors who have an interest in making pure gifts which to give something that cannot be bought (Lomasky, p. 252-255). The latter freedom is the more important one and infringing upon the freedom to buy and sell is necessary to protect it. However, according to Lomasky on sex, his argument is a reduction ad absur dum of the Titmuss-inspired argument against kidney sales. If prohibiting kidney [human tissue] sales is necessary to protect the freedom of someone who wants to make her kidney a pure gift, then prohibiting marriage is necessary to protect the freedom of someone who wants to engage in sex outside the context of any contractual format. However, this is a terrible reason to prohibit marriage obviously, so it must also be a terrible reason to prohibit a market in kidneys or even human tissues. Therefore, it evokes my deeper curiosity to take somewhat in-depth analysis about what justifies legalization for commodifying body parts, especially kidneys in this essay. Many people claim that the growth of black market activity is induced by financial incentives of kidney transplantation, but I would argue that an equal force driving the expansion of the black market is the lack of a legitimate market. Clearly, the current donation system is unable to meet overall demand. The countries with a huge shortage of kidneys that have outlawed commodification have inadvertently stimulated the growth of black market activities because there are always wealthy people who will strive to preserve their own lives even if it means exploiting the poor. For example, one recent headlined article from Singapore reads, Two Indonesian men who agreed to sell their kidneys for more than S$20,000 ($14,814 U.S. dollars) each were given light prison terms and fines after a judge blamed syndicates for exploiting them (Earth Times News). If a legal market were to be established, law enforcement would be better able to protect the poor from such exploitation. Kidney transplant ation would also be formally and properly regulated within a legitimate market, thereby protecting the sellers and guaranteeing the quality of the organs for the recipients. On the other hand, one of the most prominent concerns about legalizing the commodification of kidneys is that it would, in effect, evoke financial incentives. Thus there are some anti-market rebuttals that try to address why commodification of organs is not allowed. First of all, people argue that with the differences between the motive of the individual in selling a kidney and donating one. Sellers are motivated by financial incentives, self-interest, or the interests of their families if they sell in order to provide for their families. Donors are motivated by benevolence or altruism. However, I would argue that if self-interest was so bad then the commodification of, for instance, blood products would be ruled out. As a result, the self-interested motive does not rule commodification of other body parts. On the other hand, parting with a kidney is different than parting with blood. The latter is simple and quick while the former requires the risks of major surgery and living the r est of ones life with just one kidney. However, if kidney transplant was so dangerous because of its invasiveness, then donating them would be ruled out. Thus, these risks are not judged great enough to justify prohibiting donating kidneys. So, there are arguments about these differences which dont suggest the market for commodification of organs. However, these differences do not make any moral difference. If we oppose the sale of kidneys because we think it is too dangerous, then we should also oppose live kidney donations. On the contrary, we do not oppose live kidney donations because we realize that the risks are acceptably low and worth taking in order to save lives. So, it is inconsistent to oppose selling kidneys because of the possible dangers while at the same time endorsing donating kidneys is permissible. Similarly, if we oppose kidney sales because we think people should not commodify body parts, then we should also oppose commercial blood banks which I mentioned before. However, most people would not oppose the existence of commercial blood banks because they realize that these blood banks play an extraordinary role in saving lives. Therefore, it is also inconsistent to oppose selling kidneys since it involves payment while at the same time endorsing commodification of tissue is a permissible act. It seems that if people would ban the market for commodification of organs, they should also oppose the ideas either the donation of kidneys isnt permissible due to the risk attached to the surgery or commodification of other tissues isnt permissible. I think both of them are neither plausible nor have very wide support. Indeed, most nations are trying to encourage more donation as well as more supply in order to save more people. The failure to generate adequate supply is why market solutions are beginning to get more traction in certain countries including Singapore. In addition, it might still be fine to sell hair. One might argue that there is a moral difference to be made between hair on one hand and kidneys are blood products on the other hand. Obviously, people need blood and kidneys in order to live due to physical necessities, so one might say that it is only impermissible to sell human tissue that arent physical necessities. I, however, think that theres something wrong wit h the claim about commodifying stuff like that. In fact, legalizing commodification could itself convince people to participate in kidney transplantation. Because communitarians emphasize that individual rights and interests should be compatible with those of the community as a whole, they believe this could change societys moral sense. Thus, setting up a law to allow the commodification of kidney transplantation could lead people to believe that giving a kidney to others is not only moral but expected. Setting aside the communitarian perspective, poor people risk their own lives by giving up their kidneys in order to save anothers life, which is justified by their altruism, according to our class discussion. They are all rational people who are self-governed and able to weigh the risks of kidney donation against their own propensity toward altruism. Some poor people may attempt to receive compensation for their organ donation, thus blaming their decision on the financial incentives. However, they still had the option to make money in other ways. Even the current system of organ donation may contain a form of coercion in that a prospective donor may feel extremely uncomfortable refusing to donate his or her kidney to someone who is in such desperate need due to the vast shortage of donors. In the end, we should respect the decisions of individuals who make rational choices about kidney donation regardless of whether these choices are made with consideration of the financial incentiv es. Also, anti-commodification about kidneys cant be just a knee-jerk antipathy towards markets. We shouldnt spurn markets without stopping to think of how much markets in goods do for our general welfare. In other words, it would be improper to be anti-commodification about everything. Moreover, we should not spurn markets in the name of the poor and oppressed without stopping to think of how getting rid of these markets would affect the poor and oppressed. People do not sell spare kidneys or turn to prostitution for fun. They make such choices only when their alternatives are even worse. Therefore, it seems to me that rejecting commodification may be a luxury that not everyone can afford. There are also some arguments that claim that the commodification of kidneys would cheapen our humanity. I, however, think that the intrinsic value of our humanity would not be cheapened even if we put a price tag on our organs, for the price only signifies that we are trading kidneys at a specific rate. A price tag does not indicate the total value of a commodity. Rather, a price tag should be seen as an attempt to quantify some aspects of [the] usage (de Castro, 2003, p. 145) of somethings infinite value à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ No one would ever say that this method capture[s] the full value that we ascribe to human life (de Castro, 2003, p. 145). Such a method never aims to capture that infinite value (Julia Joseph). Thus, creating financial incentives to encourage people to sell their organs to the needy does not devalue humanity. Moreover, as I mentioned in the class discussion, we accept donors giving up their kidneys on the basis of altruistic motivations, so we should likewise not rule out the possibility that donors would like to give up their kidneys for financial incentives, especially when we strongly believe that such motivations could save a significantly greater number of lives. Thus, commodification should be permissible, as it would neither devalue the intrinsic worth of humanity nor be limited by the boundary of altruism. Even in a commodified system, each individual can give his or her kidney on the basis of pure altruism; the financial reward would merely be a secondary benefit to altruists. A legal commodified system would ultimately save more lives, as people would be donating for altruistic as well as financial reasons, and the system would be stringently regulated by law. This essay focused on arguments regarding a legitimate market for the commodification of kidneys as well as misconceptions about the consequences of permitting this commodification. Above, I discussed three rebuttals to anti-market arguments, all of which demonstrate that black market activities are thriving due to the lack of legitimate market regulation of human organ procurement. Fortunately, our culture of liberty places great value on individuals rational decisions; in this sense, people should be allowed to weigh the potential risks against their own propensity toward altruism. Commodification encourages such deliberation by respecting peoples decisions to seek money for their available organs, in addition to seeking spiritual reward, on the basis of rationality. Moreover, a legal financial incentive would encourage more people to donate. Saving more lives through allowing the selling of kidneys does not devalue a humans dignity any more than does our current practice of sellin g other medical services. The key to the safe and effective commodification of kidneys may ultimately depend on proper regulation of the system by law enforcement. In order to more quickly start saving more lives, we should prioritize the creation of a legal market of properly regulated commodification of kidneys instead of arguing over the possible undesirable consequences of such a market.

The ?Way? As Seen In Taoism And Confucianism Essay -- essays research

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Taoism and Confucianism are both very complex and important religions of their time. Both mainly Asian religions, these creeds were more prominent in the times they were developed then they are today. Each of these religions had a certain belief that there was a â€Å"Way† that things should happen and should work so that goodness and peace will regulate in the world. Confucius was the founder of Confucianism. His works were taught in the Confucian Analects. His sense of mission to be â€Å"a human among other humans.† He was said to have fortune cookie knowledge and was admired by many people, including his many followers. Lao Tzu is the founder of Taoism. His teachings are found from the Te-tao-ching. Lao Tzu beliefs were nature based around nature. Each of these teachers taught a great deal to their followers about their beliefs and we see that through the works they left behind. Confucius was willing to teach and learn with anyone who came to him; once he even accepted an uncapped youth though he stated that he was not responsible for what the youth did when he left. He once struck a man who was waiting for him in a sprawling position in the shins with his staff, declaring that youths that show no respect for their elders achieve nothing, and those who merely get older are useless pests. He observed that one youth seemed to be more interested in growing up quickly than in improving himself....

Heroes and Heroism in Anita Desais Clear Light of Day Essay

Heroes and Heroism in Anita Desai's Clear Light of Day      Ã‚  Ã‚   When one asks a child, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" a usual response is "a fireman" or "a ballerina."   In Anita Desai's Clear Light of Day, however, the young Bim and Raja are somewhat more ambitious; they answer that they want to be a hero and heroine.   Later, Bim asks somewhat bitterly, "The hero and heroine-where are they?   Down at the bottom of the well-gone, disappeared" (157).   Bim has lost track of her heroes; however, Raja and Tara have not.   The three siblings have very different relationships to heroic ideals.   Ã‚  Ã‚   Raja is the most obviously hero-conscious character.   First of all, he is extremely artistic and idealistic, so he adores poetry, in both English and Urdu.   He merely reads and quotes English poets, such as Byron and Tennyson; however, he goes farther in imitating the style of Urdu poetry in his own verses.   As Bim thinks, The poems were really very derivative.   On each of them she could clearly see the influence of the poets he loved and copied.   There was no image, no metaphor, no turn of phrase that was original.   Each was a meticulous imitation of what he had read, memorized and recited . . . .   One could see in them only a wish to emulate and to step where his heroes had stepped before him. (168) Raja is not trying to be an original poet on his own; he simply tries to be exactly like his heroes, which he does perfectly.   Through the Urdu poetry that he so admires, Raja becomes acquainted with his Muslim landlord and neighbor, Hyder Ali.   At first Raja merely has permission to read and borrow the books in Hyder Ali's library, but increasingly he becomes involved in that family's household.   There he learns to app... ...s Bim, because she strikes a balance between idealism and reality.   Raja is completely out of touch and gets so carried away by his glorious plans that he disregards the dangerous political situation which makes his plans impossible.   At the other extreme, Tara lacks dreams, so that she has no goals for herself and needs Bakul to force her to "be strong" and "execute her will" (17).   Bim, however, has entertained ideals, had them crushed, and finally come to terms with her disillusionment.   Bim is the heroine in Clear Light of Day.    Work Cited Desai, Anita.   Clear Light of Day.   Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1980.    Professor's Comments: Although your conclusion on Bim-as-heroine could use development--this is a fine and full exploration of the issue from your own angle.   Good use of supporting illustration, and tecnically perfect.  

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence Speech Essay

In this 3 – minute speech, you need to promote a product or an idea to your audience. You must use Monroe’s Motivated Sequence to organize your materials. Some research is required to support your claims. Use this sheet as your guide to organize your thoughts and as your notes to present. Turn this in after your presentation. Attention: Please use a hypothetical scenario, a story, a question, a quote, or other ways to get the audience’s attention. Have you ever skipped breakfast before? If you Google the term â€Å"skip breakfast,† more than 10 million results turn up, often with information about how eating breakfast is crucial to maintain a healthy lifestyle. But why do you still skip the breakfast? Need/Problem: Please demonstrate there is a problem or an unfulfilled need that has detrimental effect on the audience. Use research data to support that claim. * (Sp1) â€Å"I want to lose weight.† â€Å"I’m on diet,† is a common excuse for people who skip breakfast. This is actually counterproductive. According to Jane Harrison, R.D., Staff Nutritionist at Web site myOptumHealth, people who eat a balanced breakfast less tend to obesity. They are more likely to avoid a drop in blood sugar that will lead them to make unwise food choices later in the day. * (Sp2) â€Å"I don’t have time to eat.† â€Å"I don’t have time,† is another excuse of people who don’t eat breakfast. Considering the health benefit of breakfast, it is worth setting the alarm to wake you five minutes earlier. * (Sp3) â€Å"I don’t feel hungry in the morning.† â€Å"I’m not hungry in the morning,† is a common refrain of people looking to skip breakfast. For these people, the American Dietetic Association recommends: â€Å"Start your day with a cup of 100 percent fruit juice or a piece of whole-wheat toast.† Most people can get that down. Later, when you feel hungry, they recommend having a mid-morning snacks. Satisfaction/ Solution: Please tell us how this problem can be solved or how this need will be fulfilled. Cereal bars is your optimal choice. * (SP1): Cereal bars could help you lose weight. Eating cereal in the morning can remain a balanced blood-sugar level, which can decrease hunger throughout the day so by lunchtime and onwards, you tend to eat less and keep a clear mind to make wise choice for lunch and dinner. * (SP2): Cereal bars could save you time on preparing breakfast. Assembling a full breakfast may be a challenge for someone with a tight schedule, and many people believe that breakfast is an important meal, so cereal bars fill the need. * (SP3): Cereal bars could be a healthy mid-morning snacks. People can also snack on a cereal bar in the middle of the day, with some people carrying cereal bars so that they can keep their blood-sugar under control. Visualization: Please describe what life would be like for the audience if this problem is solved and this need is fulfilled. You can enjoy a healthy breakfast help you to lose weight. You can set your alarm 10 minutes later to wake you up. You can enjoy the delicious snack whenever you want. Action: Please urge your audience to take specific action to address this issue. Reemphasize that the world/ their life would be better if they do. Anytime, anywhere, Ready to go. Bibliography 1. Marano, H. (2012). Champions of Breakfast. Psychology Today, 45(4), 44. 2. REECE, T. (2012). Eat more weigh less. Essence (Time Inc.), 43(1), 135-138. 3. what are cereal bars. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-cereal-bars.htm 4. Rebecca, J. (n.d.). Excuses for not eating breakfast. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/list_7146953_excuses-not-eating-breakfast.html