LOVE (14% Discount) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

LOVE (14% Discount) - Essay Example Effect of a microorganism or virulence of a bacterium may be caused by an organism being physically present in the host where it releases toxins to the host directly or its preformed toxins get into another organism’s body system through various routes such ingestion, skin etc. The virulence of microorganisms varies across genus as well as species. In this paper, I am going to describe two bacteria, explain their ecological niche, and finally compare them. After a thorough evaluation of bacteria I have rested on Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus bulgaricus. The reason for selecting the two organisms is that they share a common feature of exhibiting a rectangular shape but their behaviors are totally different. Their similarities and differences are expounded below. Lactobacillus bulgaricus’ is a non pathogenic organism. It occurs in its natural environment and its ecological niche is where there is its requirements for growth are provided especially in dairy products that contain lactose. It is chemoorganotrophic meaning that it must obtain energy and carbon from organic compounds. It is a rod shaped and the rods join end to end to form a filamentous structure that are extensively long. This bacterium is a gram positive facultative anaerobe. Based on this fact, Lactobacillus bulgaricus can be homofermenative or heterofermentative. When it comes to motion, the bacterium is non motile because it does not possess locomotion. When conditions become unfavorable this particular bacterium does not form a spore. According to Guchte (2006) its size based on its shape ranges between 0.5-0.8 x 2.0-9.0mm. For this bacterium to grow it requires a medium whose pH ranges between 4.6 -5.4 (Guchte, 2006). The fact that it can only hydrolyse lactose sugar makes it quite important to food industry because of its by-products. When

Political cultures of texas Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Political cultures of texas - Research Paper Example This culture establishes the outer boundary of all the possibilities within the political dominion. According to ‘Texas Politics, today’ (Maxwell et al., pp. 20-39), the political culture of Texas consists of three sub-cultures: traditional, individualistic, and moralistic. The individualistic culture stresses minimum government intervention that should be limited to safeguarding individual rights while other social and political relationships should be upon private sector. One the other hand, moralistic political culture urges government intervention in social and economic matters for the well-being of the people and general welfare. Traditional subculture, however, has a different viewpoint. It states that since the political power lies in the hands of the dominating or elite group therefore role of the government should be limited to maintaining the social order and tradition. The traditional subculture dominates in East Texas while other subcultures dominate in the r est of Texas. The political culture and philosophy is elaborated under three philosophical streams: classical liberalism, social conservation, and populism. Firstly, Classical liberalism’ focus is to place political value on political measures which helps an individual to exercise full liberty until and unless others are not limited by it. It often forms opposition to the use of the government to attain social goals. They press for the market forces or private motives to provide the best outcome. Moreover, historically Texas also supported religious acceptance for civil liberties for both individualism and entrepreneurship. One of the classic examples of reputation in Texas is H. Ross Perot (political candidate and rich businessperson). Other examples also include Willie Nelson and several Texans who disobeyed social values, rejected the acceptance of race and gender like Barbara Jordan (Maxwell et al., pp. 23-25). Social conservatism came out of classical conservatism viewed liberalism with distrust and appreciated traditional hierarchical social relations. This has rooted in feudal English and European thinking. Moreover, in contemporary forms, the idea of government intervention to reinforce social relations is very well substantiated by the social conservatives. They value traditional practices such as religious beliefs and respect traditional authorities, which can include business or religious leaders. While on the other hand, socially conservatism continues to influence within Democratic Party since decades although their ideology is under the ideas of Republican Party. Populism, the third category, is concerned with well being of ordinary people and has both political and social dimensions. Popular will is the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong in political position. The idea of Populism supports government politically in managing society and the economy. Populism depends on the style and rhetorical appeal to its audience rather than on the content of the policies of the political candidates. Populism can also take socially conservative forms in its support to the political leader. Thus, populism has different positions to support, which depend on the context. Moreover, it ignores the traditional views

Aviation Safety System Management Program Research Paper

Aviation Safety System Management Program - Research Paper Example In the modern dispensation of the aviation industry, SMS has become a legal requirement for any airline operator before they can fully be registered to fly passengers. These systems are used to proactively prevent occurrences of incidents and accidents, managing chances of the occurrences and to provide a baseline for investigation purposes in case of any occurrences. This paper partly engages renowned safety analysis cases in the aviation industry while consolidating information on the need for SMS, its basics and hoe to typically design such a system for an aviation operator within all the relevant considerations as mandated by the law. However, the information contained in this paper is just for purposes of creating a foundation for further research and investigation and the systems will be dependent on the organizational needs and structures. This research paper shall engage an in-depth analysis of the concept of Safety Management System (SMS) especially within the considerations of the aviation industry with a close reference to previous renowned safety analysis case works in an attempt to try and consolidate information on the actual need for and how to create an effective SMS for purposes of safety sensitization and education in the daily operations of most organizations, the airline industry specifically (Shappel & Wiegmann, 2000). In the same regard, the best approach to take in this case is to first establish the basics of SMS with a close niche of the real life experiences using the numerous information available on this topic and typically, before setting out to elucidate the approach on how to create them, there is need to inform the whole process based on previous evidence and analysis. For a start, a Safety Management Systems (SMS) is a framework, which is principally formal and systematically indicates how to proactively identify risks and

Research paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 11

Research paper - Essay Example It is strongly believed that by taking into consideration various arguments along with counterarguments based on the aforesaid sentiments, the role of obligations in the context of fighting against evil and the potentiality of the intellectuals towards governing a specific society can be ascertained. Philip Zimbardo, the lecturer in the audio file i.e. â€Å"Journey from the Psychology of Evil to the Psychology of Heroism† provided knowledge about psychological effect on the mind and behaviour of people. The lecturer signified that there are different factors that are accountable for transforming human behaviour and character. Moreover, the transformation in the character is observed due to social influence, situational act, personal attributes or morality, compassion or sense of justice. The factors are identified to adversely affect the psychological stability of human mind based on which good people are engaged in performing evil actions affecting a society as a whole. The lecturer also added that evil behaviour is exercising power to damage, harm or obliterate psychological or physical well-being of others (Korstanje, 2013; Zimbardo, 2007). Correspondingly, the essay intends to analyse sentiment to fight evil. The discussion will identify the suitability of intellectuals about their fitness in governing a society. Additionally, argument and counterargument provided with the aim of determining the appropriateness of the arguments relating to good or evil actions performed. In general, most of the people recognizes that evil is a quality, which is inherent or developed by some of the people and not by all human beings. Evil behaviour is developed by an external force and bad seeds, which enforce an individual to perform evil actions. In contrast, spiritual power grounds evil either directly in the appearance of possession or indirectly as a spiritual oppression.

You can make a topic Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

You can make a topic - Essay Example Leopold argues that there have not been laws to determine the ethical aspects of the person and other things like land and animals which are relevant parts of the life of people. This means that people are likely participate in the different ways that violates the rights of the land and animals without getting subjected to any law (Leopold 163-164). Leopold (165) argue ethics is a guide that should dictate the behavior of people when they are interacting with other parts of the ecology in which they live and exploit to have their livelihood. According to him for example, land ethic makes Homo sapiens just members in the ecology as opposed to his conquering position in which he may take advantage of other individuals in the society. This means that people cannot exploit the land while provoking the rights of the other organisms that are occupying the same environment because the rights make all of them equal members in the environment. In another area, Leopold says that conservation is one of the key components and role that members of the ecology should carry on as long as they are in the environment. This means that all the occupants need to be conscious of the place in which they live and therefore, they should engage in practices that will ensure that they their stay is sustainable. On the other hand, Leopold (166) provides an alternative to land ethics which is looking at the fact of conservation from the perspective of the economic value of each member of the ecology. This means that all the plants and animals that produce nothing of economic significance should be left out to survive on their own and can also be eliminated to allow the productivity of the land. The strength of Leopold’s work is that it provides a framework of the behavior of different individuals in the ecology as role players to ensure conservation of the environment without

It is not only Hamlet who is transformed Essay Example for Free

It is not only Hamlet who is transformed Essay Something have you heard of Hamlets transformation It is not only Hamlet who is transformed: the concepts of transformation and decay are at the centre of the play both for Shakespeares audience and for modern theatregoers. Discuss. The opening scene of Hamlet is one filled with nervousness and emotional tension. Shakespeare shows this through the language of his characters. Barnardos first line of Whos there followed by Franciscos reply of Nay, answer me. reveals to the audience the agitation of the sentinels. This unstable atmosphere continues throughout the scene and the audience find out that there is a threat from Fortinbras to attack Denmark and the old king has died. Certainty dissolves into rumour showing there is also dislocation in Denmarks society At least the whisper goes so as the people are uncertain about what is going to happen. The play speaks of a strange eruption to the state and so it could be argued that Denmark has gone through a transformation of political power and the state itself has changed. This is because Marcellus speaks of the old Denmark and how hallowd and so gracious is that time when the nights were wholesome. The new Denmark, on the other hand, is a place where the dead are restless and the future of the country is uncertain. The theme of political instability was a significant factor for a 17th century audience who had experienced similar traumas. England had struggled to raise a navy to meet the Spanish Armada in 1588. Shakespeares Denmark is in a state in jeopardy- just as England was after the death of Elizabeth as the public awaited to see who would succeed the throne. Shakespeares first audience could see a scene of their own recent history- and an unsettling reminder of their uncertain future. Like the sentinels, an audience in the 1600s would feel uneasy and sense the dislocation of Denmark. A modern audience understands the instability in the opening scene, however, they would not necessarily be fully aware of its intenseness, as there are different attitudes towards kings and the transmission of power of one regime to the next today. Nevertheless, the opening scene has a dramatic impact on both audiences and although an audience in 1600 would relate to the transformation of the state more than an audience in 2003, both audiences understand that Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The instability of the natural world affects the different audiences in different ways. The entrance of the Ghost had particular significance to Shakespeares audience; religion and the state were intertwined; ghosts walked the earth and their return signified unfinished business, a threat to the state or buried treasure. In this case, the ghost is seen wearing armour showing that evil must have occurred which harmed the former king: My fathers spirit in arms! All is not well. I doubt some foul play. The arrival of the Ghost establishes the break between this world and the next, the natural and the supernatural. This adds to the idea of transformation of Denmark that has gone from a place of natural stability into a state of constant turmoil where the supernatural and natural are combined. There is a greater dramatic impact on Shakespeares audience when the Ghost arrives because they believed in the supernatural world and therefore would understand this unstableness in the state. Modern audiences, however, would not be fully aware of how significant the arrival of the Ghost is in the play. More people today do not believe in such things as ghosts and the supernatural realm. However, modern audiences would sense that there has been a transformation in the natural order of Denmark, the reasons for this change such as political and moral instability would affect the audience more than the supernatural aspect of the play. Moral issues in Hamlet add to the idea that the state has been transformed. Both audiences would have been shocked to discover the marriage between Claudius and Gertrude having found out that Claudius is the dead kings brother. Shakespeare shows us disgust through the language of his characters. Hamlets line of: O most wicked speed! To post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets! has hissing sibilants that truly show the disgust of the prince and therefore the audience. Shakespeare also emphasises Hamlets repulsion repeatedly with vivid sexual imageries, In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed furthermore increasing our disgust of incest between the Bloat King and his queen. Some among Hamlets first audience would recognise this marriage as a parallel to English history. Claudius kills a king and assumes his throne. Henry VII killed King Richard III at Bosworth and founded a Tudor dynasty on a flawed pedigree. Claudius marries Gertrude his late brothers wife as Henry VIII married his brothers widow, Katharine of Aragon. Shakespeares audience knew how England had suffered because of the immoral involvement between the royals, such as incest and murder, so they could predict that Denmark will suffer because of its king as England did. By relating his play to parts of recent history, Shakespeare relies on his audience to supply the details of what is to come.

The Cost Of The War On Drugs Philosophy Essay

The Cost Of The War On Drugs Philosophy Essay The War on Drugs was declared on June 17, 1971 by President Nixon, claiming at a press conference that drugs and their abuse are, public enemy number one in the United States (Frontline). Since that time, the War on Drugs has gone on to become the longest and most costly war in American history (Duke 15). The ever increasing expenditures, perceived infringement of constitutional rights, misinformation campaigns, imprisonments, and the seeming futility of the whole endeavor are leading many to question whether the War on Drugs is justifiable. This war is being waged against a concept and not an enemy, which guarantees unlimited funding and an unlimited time period with which to fight it. Not only is it unethical for the government to specify what chemicals citizens can and cannot place into their own bodies, the massive resources funneled into this futile operation would greatly benefit other areas of human society. 87 million people over the age of twelve have used illegal drugs, making this war on a concept virtually a war against the citizens of the United States (Cole, par. 14). The majority of resources devoted to the war on drugs are for law enforcement purposes, ignoring the underlying problems of addiction within the consumer culture in which we live. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be a sorry state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny (Shulgin 28). Jack Cole is a retired New Jersey state police lieutenant who spent nearly fourteen years working as a narcotics officer. Over the course of his career, Jack evolved from a true believer in the War on Drugs into the co-founder of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition or LEAP. LEAP, as the name states, is an organization consisting of former police officers, judges, district attorneys, retired DEA, etc., who lobby for drug legalization (Cole, par. 1). Jack believes the War on Drugs is unjustly destroying millions of Americans lives every year and that the war itself is primarily responsible for many of the drug and drug related societal problems (par. 2). For example, by declaring certain drugs illegal one creates a black market and artificially inflates the price of these inherently non valuable products. Where there is demand there will be supply, especially for a ridiculous profit margin such as 17,000%, as Jack states (par. 7). These profits fund illegal organizations, such as Al Qaeda and organized crime, as well as contribute to local violence as seen in gang disputes over drug peddling territory (par. 7,20). Mr. Cole cites several compelling statistics. Tobacco kills 430,000 Americans per year, Alcohol 110,000, and all illegal drugs combined kill less than 12,000 people per year (par. 9). The US government spends 69 billion dollars per year in the War on Drugs and arrests 1.6 million on non-violent drug offenses (par. 9). Mr. Cole raises the valid question as to whether these monetary and human expenses are justified in combating illegal drugs while approximately 540,000 deaths are attributed yearly to legal alcohol and tobacco consumption (par. 9). A key question in considering the war on drugs is that of how much freedom an individual should have. John Stuart Mill addressed this question in his seminal work On Liberty. Mill was of the persuasion that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number isà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ to prevent harm to others. His own good, whether physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (LaFollette 290). By this definition, the notion of victimless crime is moot. With no victim, there is no crime. This is a major point of contention among many because humans do not live their lives in a vacuum, virtually every action affects someone else in some way. Another important aspect to consider is the notion of harm. Who exactly is being harmed by drug use? If it is the drug user that is harmed, according to Mills views we have no right to prevent a rational human being from performing this action, even if the action itself is irrational. If there is sufficient evidence that drug use directly harms others, that is a justifiable reason to prohibit societys actions. Many in favor of prohibition cite many ways in which drug use harms others, such as drug use increases crime, child abuse, spousal neglect, accidents, and non-productiveness. The problem though, is that drug use does not directly cause these harms, rather it increases the risk of these harms. Rape and murder are always wrong because they always harm someone else by definition. Drug use is more slippery, not every user harms others and no user always harms others. We must decide if the likelihood of a few users to sometimes harm others is justifiable reason to ban all drug use. This is much like the decision we have already made concerning the risk of gun ownership. James Q. Wilson is an academic political scientist and President Nixons appointed chairman for the National Advisory Council for Drug Abuse Prevention (NACDAP), the forerunner to the modern DEA. Wilson is a firm supporter of the drug war, arguing that the expenses that would be incurred from legalization far outweigh any expense of the current drug war (297). He claims that the notion of drug use being a victimless crime is absurd, that society is not, nor ever has been, composed of autonomous beings (297). In his view, drug use is wrong because it demoralizes people, is contrary to human goodness, and degrades society as a whole (297). Wilson is combining a form of cost-benefit analysis utilitarianism with his evaluation of the virtues of drug use. A counter to this point of view is seen in the writings of Thomas Szasz, a professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York. Szasz thinks that when the Declaration of Independence states all men, meaning rational adults, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this includes the liberty to self medicate with drugs (White 279). His view is reminiscent of Mills statement that Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign (LaFollette 290). The factors of addiction and danger are thought to have no bearing on the argument, that self harm is not a justifiable liberty limiting principle (White 279). Freedom is and always will be more valuable than safety. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, Those who can give up essential liberty to attain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety (ushistory.org). Speaking of liberty limiting principles, Szasz is speaking from a standpoint of the harm principle, or the idea that law may only rightly restrict an individuals actions if they directly harm another (Mackinnon 233). As mentioned previously, this originated with J.S. Mill. There are other liberty limiting principles to consider though, such as the social harm principle which claims that the law may prevent an individuals actions if they do harm to society itself (234). In a free market society, anything that erodes competition may be justly outlawed. This may partly provide reason for declaring marijuana illegal due to the fact that the top ten drug companies account for more than 50% of Fortune 500 profits and according to Dr. Claudia Jensen, a breast cancer specialist, 80% of prescription drugs could be replaced by cannabis (American Drug War). This would seriously erode the market because cannabis can be grown virtually anywhere as is seen today with its cultivation in areas rangi ng from backyards to bedroom closets. Another way in which drugs may violate the social harm principle is in their alleged degradation of the family. William J. Bennett, a former drug czar under the Bush Sr. administration, states that not only do drugs harm the users, but also hurt parents, they destroy families, they ruin friendships (Bender 52). If family structure is deemed to be an integral part of societal well being, this argument could stand up under the societal harm principle. There is a risk of committing the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy if sufficient evidence of drug use directly harming the family unit is not produced. Viewing the subject of drugs through a deontological lens produces different ideas altogether on the subject. Firstly, the use of drugs for recreational purposes may very well be breaking Kants imperative not to use oneself as a means to an end. Second, the highest purpose of a human is to be a rational being and anything that impairs this ability must be inherently bad. Intoxication muddies ones ability to consider situations rationally, hampering ones ability to make a proper moral choice. One could also argue that drug use leading to addiction robs an individual of their autonomy, overriding their free will with a drive for consumption at all costs. Also, in relation to Kants maxim of universalizability, one could without contradiction will it to be a universal law that nobody injects heroin. I think this principle becomes a bit less clear when considering substances such as marijuana though. Virtue ethics are most famously associated with Aristotle and provide a refreshing perspective in relation to drug usage and its legislature. By not focusing on the act itself or the assumed consequences of the action, virtue ethics focuses on the character of the agent. Aristotle also does not distinguish between morality and politics because the two are intertwined (Christie 56). Politics are meant to populate society with citizens of good character (56). By employing the golden mean as mentioned in Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics, we can hope to arrive at a balance between two extremes. Additionally, Aristotle also takes into account contextual factors such as our willingness to do the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, and with the right motives. The two poles of our current situation in regard to drug usage are absolute prohibition and complete legalization. The associated virtues of these positions could be conservancy and liberalism. I think a strategy of legalization and control would best fit the situation as a golden mean. Can condoning drug use be a virtue though? It is virtuous to promote virtue and vicious to promote vice. Through prohibition we are greatly contributing to empires built on vice and adding to the already ample surplus of human suffering in the world. Maybe it is not condoning drug use, but having compassion for the suffering of others and seeking to minimize that suffering. In conclusion, after conducting my research I am still of the opinion that the War on Drugs is ethically wrong. I have learned many disturbing things involved with the prohibition of chemical substances. Prisons are being privatized, which is good for expense optimization but creates a profit motive to incarcerate people (American Drug War). Their stock is sold on wall street based on how many people are in jail (American Drug War). Almost half a million people are in prison or jail due to drug offenses (drugwarfacts.org). The private companies can also use inmates as private property to do work or produce goods the company profits from, which sounds a bit like slavery to me (American Drug War). The number of marijuana arrests is greater than the number of arrests for all violent crimes combined, meaning that if it were to be legalized, many powerful organizations would lose a great deal of money (skeptically.org). Many drugs were banned originally due to reasons of racism, empire bu ilding, and fear (Hooked). The CIA is alleged to have started the L.A. crack epidemic of the 1980s to finance Nicaraguan Contra efforts, with fairly compelling evidence (Webb). Money seems to control everything. The Partnership for a Drug Free Americas biggest funders were alcohol and tobacco companies until they were exposed, now they only accept from prescription drug manufacturers (Males par. 9). Marijuana is in the same DEA schedule as heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine, which is asinine (justice.gov). Cocaine is not physically addictive nor is MDMA (Eldredge 13). No one has ever died from a marijuana overdose (23). Alcohol withdrawal is on par with heroin, and both are awful (15). Drugs do not consume people, people consume drugs and sometimes allow them to take over. A peyote cactus, which has existed on this earth far longer than humans, is not an inherently bad thing yet it is a schedule I offense to grow one in your front yard. I do not think that drugs should be sold from vending machines on the street corner, but under prohibition they virtually are, except not from vending machines. By declaring these substances illegal we are ceding any amount of control we might be able to exert over a wide range of powerful and potentially dangerous chemicals. People will consume whether society says they can or not, in ever more innovative and industrious ways. The current era of synthetic drugs capable of being manufactured in a bathroom is due in part to prohibition of less harmful substances. It is cheaper and easier to make your own supply with stuff you bought from Walgreens and Home Depot. Seeking altered states of consciousness seems ingrained in the human ps yche. Our current efforts with this war against drugs have only served to amplify the negative effects drugs have on society. Legalization and control, much like we do with alcohol and tobacco, seems to me to be the golden mean of this situation. I do not think people should use heroin, but I also do not think I have a right to force them not to in the privacy of their own home nor that we are helping anyone by making it illegal. We should stop this madness now, there is an almost infinite variety of substances that exist now or are mere potentialities that will inebriate a human being. We are seeing this across America today with the rise in popularity of incense that has been sprayed with a synthetic cannabinoid agonist and sold for $20 a gram. We are like Don Quixote battling an enemy that does not exist while the real enemy is inside ourselves. If we devoted as many resources as we funnel into the drug war toward education, research, and endeavors to better understand ourselves and the world that surrounds us, society would without a doubt have a better tomorrow.