Look Homeward Angel Essays - Fiction, Literature,

Look Homeward Angel Erin OHara Kate Myers English 101 11/25/00 Look Homeward, Angel Review (Final draft, 5th essay) A culturally enriching experience is an experience that is related to the arts and an intellectual activity, which makes you become a better person or makes you feel you have become a better person. Also, a culturally enriching experience is when you allow yourself to become more educated on a certain topic and it improves yourself. I feel the theatre, through plays, gives people a culturally enriching experience. By sitting in the audience and becoming involved in the play we are able to place ourselves in the shoes of the characters on the stage. We relate our own lives to theirs. Through this and the fact that when we go to see a play we are broadening are horizons allows us to have a culturally enriching experience. The play, Look Homeward, Angel, relates to my meaning of a culturally enriching experience. In the play there is this family who goes through many problems, an alcoholic father, a crazy mother, and a dieing son. With these problems audience members are able to relate to the pain and suffering that this family is experiencing. It is not that you can relate exactly to their problems, but the audience member knows what it feels to have family struggles. As I sat there watching the play, I became very emotional because I was able to relate myself to the youngest son because I, too, am the youngest in my family and know what it feels like to always be the one joked on or have a mother who takes up all her strength to finally let you go and become an adult. This play also shows people how the times where during that period and how money was a major struggle. The play, for two hours, makes you feel apart of this family and awakens your mind with knew knowledge, allowing for an experience th at is culturally enriching. When it comes to recommending Look Homeward, Angel I definitely recommend it to men and women of all ages. It is a comedy/tragedy that grabs you from the moment the play starts. When I went to see the play I do not think that there was a dry eye in the audience. Even grown men who I thought never cried were crying their eyes out. If you are looking for a play to take the whole family to I recommend Look Homeward, Angel. It is a play that everyone can relate to and find some sort of enjoyment out of it. English Essays

Questions to Ask When Hiring a Lawyer

Questions to Ask When Hiring a Lawyer Choosing a lawyer can be the most important decision an immigrant makes. Before hiring legal counsel, take the time to find out what youre getting. Here are the questions you should ask during an interview with a prospective attorney. What to Ask an Immigration Lawyer How long have you been practicing immigration law?- There is no substitute for experience when it comes to handling the most challenging cases. It’s important that your attorney not only knows the law but also understands the process. Don’t be afraid to ask about the lawyer’s background and credentials, either. It can be a good idea to talk to a former client and ask how things went.Are you a member of AILA?- The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is a national organization of more than 11,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. They are specialists who are up to date on U.S. law. AILA attorneys represent U.S. families seeking permanent residency for family members and U.S. businesses seeking talent from overseas. AILA members also represent foreign students and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis.Have you worked on cases similar to mine?- It’s always a plus if the lawyer has been successfully working a c ase that is similar to yours. Immigration cases can vary greatly and experience with your particular situation can make all the difference. What actions will you take immediately and what will follow?- Try to get a mental picture of the road ahead. Get an idea of how complicated or difficult your case may be. Take the opportunity beforehand to find out how knowledgeable and how aggressive your prospective attorney is.What are my chances of a positive outcome?- An experienced, reputable attorney will have a good idea what’s ahead and won’t make promises that can’t be kept. Be wary if you hear something that sounds too good to be true. It just might be.What can I do to improve my Chances for success?- Try to be a working partner in your own cause. Get your lawyer the documents or information she or he requires as soon as possible. Make sure you are forthcoming and that the information you give about yourself is accurate and complete. Get involved and learn the legal terminology.Can you give me an estimate of how long my case will be resolved?- It is always difficult to come up with a precise timetable when you’re dealing with the government, especially when it comes to immigration issues. But an experienced attorney can give you at least a rough estimate of what the schedule ahead might look like. You also can check on your case status directly with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Who will be working on my case besides you?- Support staff can be critical. Ask about any paralegals, investigators, researchers or even secretaries that will be assisting your attorney. It’s good to know their names and understand their roles. If there are language or translation issues, find out who might speak your language in the office.How will we communicate with each other?- Find out if the lawyer wants to talk by phone, or communicate by emails, text messages or overnight mail. Many attorneys still rely on traditional postal services (snail mail) to do much of the work. If that doesn’t suit you, make other arrangements or hire someone else. Don’t leave the office or turn off the phone without getting all the contact information you will need. If you’re overseas, you need to think about time differentials when you’re calling or text messaging.What is your rate and your best estimate of the total cost?- Ask what type of payment the lawyer acce pts (are credit cards OK?) and when you will be billed. Ask for a breakdown of the charges and see if there are any ways to minimize the cost. Find out if there are any extra expenses that might come up.

Blowing the Truth out

I would like to first explain what whistle blowing is and detail some the following important moral issues that go along with whistle blowing. I will try to show how this could affect any one by going over a classic case of an Eastern Airlines pilot . As well as considering how an individual can protect him or herself from becoming the victim when trying to blow the whistle. Under what circumstances, if any, is whistle blowing morally justified? Some people have argued that whistle blowing is never justified because employees have absolute obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to the organization for which they work. People who argue this way see no difference between employees who reveal trade secrets by selling information to competitors, and whistle – blowers who disclose activities harmful to others. This position is similar to another held by some business people that the sole obligation of corporate executives is to make a profit for the stockholders. If this were true, corporate executives would have no obligations to the public. However, no matter what one’s special obligation, one is never exempt from the general obligations we have to our fellow human beings. One of the most fundamental of these obligations is not to cause harm to others. Corporate executives are no more exempt from this obligation than other people. Corporations in democratic societies are run with the expectations that they will function in ways that are compatible with the public interest. Corporations in democratic societies are also run with the expectations that they will not only obey the law governing their activities, but will not do anything that undermines basic democratic processes, such as bribing public officials. In addition to having the obligation to make money for stockholders, corporate executives have the obligation to see that these obligations are complied within an organization. They also have obligations to the company’s employees, for example to maintain a safe working place. It is the failure of corporate executives to fulfill obligations of the types mentioned that create the need for whistle blowing. Just as the special obligations of corporate executives to stockholders cannot override their more fundamental obligations to others, the special obligations of employees to employer cannot override their more fundamental obligations. Such as obligations of confidentiality and loyalty cannot take precedence over the fundamental duty to act in ways that prevent unnecessary harm to others. Agreements to keep something secret have no moral standing unless the secret is itself morally justifiable. For example a no person can have an obligation to keep a secret of a plot to murder someone, because murder is an immoral act. It is for this reason also that employees have a legal obligation to report an employer who has committed or is about to commit a felony. Although there are obvious differences between the situation of employees who work for government agencies and those who work for private firms, if we leave apart the special case in which national security was involved, then the same principles apply to both. The Codes of Ethics of Government Service to which all government employees are expected to conform requires that employees put loyalty to moral principles and the national interest above loyalty to the public parties or the agency for which they work. Neither can one justify participation in an illegal or immoral activity by arguing that one was merely following orders. It has also been argued that whistle blowing is always justified because it is an exercise of the right to free speech. But, the right to free speech is not perfect. An example to shout â€Å"Fire† in a crowded theater because that is likely to cause a panic in which people may be injured. Similarly, one may have a right to speak out on a particular subject, in the sense that there are no contractual agreements which prohibit him/her from doing so, but it may be the case that it would be morally wrong for one to do so because it would harm innocent people, such as one’s fellow workers and stockholders who are not responsible for the wrongdoing being disclosed. The fact that one has the right to speak out does not mean that one should do so in every case. But this kind of consideration cannot create an complete prohibition against whistle-blowing because one must weigh the harm to fellow workers and stockholders caused by disclosure against the harm to others caused by allowing the organizational wrong to continue. Further more, the moral principles that you must consider all people’s interests equally prohibits giving preference to one’s own group. So there most be considered justification for not giving as much weight to the interest of the stockholders investing in corporate firms because they do so with the knowledge that they take on financial risk if management acts illegally or immorally. Same as if the employees of a company know that it is engaged in illegal or immoral activities and do not take action, including whistle blowing, to end the activities, then they must bear some of the guilt for the actions. These in turn cancel the principles that one should refrain from blowing the whistle because speaking out would cause harm to the organization. Unless it can be shown that the harm to the employees and stockholders would be significantly greater than the harm caused by the organizational wrong doing, the obligation to avoid unnecessary harm to the public must come first. This must be true even when there is specific agreements not to speak out. Because ones obligation to the public overrides one’s obligation to maintain secrecy. If the arguments which I have just made are valid then the position of whistle blowing is never justified because it involves a violation of loyalty and confidentiality, or that whistle blowing is always right because it is an exercise of the right to free speech and is morally justified. Then the obligation a person has to prevent avoidable harm to others overrides any obligations of confidentiality and loyalty, making it an obligation to blow the whistle on illegal or unethical acts. Now that I have set down some moral ground rules that help determine if your responsible or justified in blowing the whistle on big business, I would like to share with you an example of what happened to a company and a employee of a company that has had the whistle blown on them. In this first case a pilot of eastern whistle comes clean on what he suspects to be serious design problem with the new Lockheed 1011, wide body aircraft. At the time Dan blew the whistle, he was flying regularly scheduled flights for Eastern airlines as well as being involved in flight training and engineering safety, for Eastern airlines. Mr. Gellert was also a graduate of Air Force Safety School, the Army Crash Survival Investigators coarse, and the aerospace Systems Safety, all highly regarded safety courses. The problem, which Mr. Gellert suspected, was of unexplainable crashes in a flight simulator while using the auto pilot system . The L-1011 defect involved the complex interaction between the crew and the autopilot and related instruments, which they relied upon to conduct a safe approach to a runway when landing the aircraft. Mr. Gellert became aware of the problem on a routine flight while using the L-1011. While flying the aircraft with the autopilot engaged and cruising at 10,000 feet with 230 passengers, Gellert dropped his flight plan. As he went to pick it up, his elbow hit the control stick in front of him causing the plane to go in a steep dive something that should not happen. Fortunately, he was able to grab the stick and ease the plane back on course. What had happened was that that while bumping the stick, he had tripped off the autopilot. Instead of holding the plane at 10,000 feet, it had switched from its â€Å"command mode† to â€Å"control steering†. As a result, when the stick moved forward, causing the plane to dive, the autopilot, rather than holding the aircraft on course held it in a dive. There was no warning to the pilot, such as alarms or light and the autopilot’s altimeter indicated that the plane was flying at 10,000 feet, a dangerously wrong reading. After this incident Gellert told an Eastern management official what had happened and the official replied â€Å"we’ll look into it. But three months later from the time he reported the incident an Eastern airlines flight approaching Miami International Airport crashed. The crew had used the autopilot to land the plane and it had malfunctioned crashing into the everglades. The first step that Mr. Gellert took in blowing the whistle on Eastern airlines and Lockheed was to write a two page evaluation of the auto pilots problems and send them to, Frank Borman, then vice-president of operations; Floyd Hall, chairman of the board , and Samuel Higgenbottom, president of operations. The only response was from Borman that said, it was â€Å"pure folly† that the autopilot caused the accident. He also sent two copies to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board. ) which agreed with Gellert and asked him to testify against Eastern and Lockheed. Even with his testimony on his experiences with the auto pilot system NTSB found that a defect in the autopilot caused the crash, but attributed the tragedy to â€Å"pilot error† because the crew did not react fast enough. At this point eastern has done nothing to keep Gellert from doing his job . Until he had the same situation happened to him on two separate occasions, which prompted him to write a twelve-page petition to the NTSB as well as to top management. Gellert was immediately demoted to co-pilot. â€Å"Twice a year pilots bid on a base, a position, or a particular aircraft. † The first indication that he was being penalized by the company for his written petitions. At the same time the NTSB began to put pressure on eastern to make alterations to it’s aircraft’s. The pressure that went along with confronting eastern management forced Gillert to take a three- year leave of absence. And when Gillert decided to return to work, eastern denied him, questioning his ability to fly an aircraft concerned with his mental state. Eastern grounded Gillert indefinitely. A civil suit was filed and won by Gellert . The jury found Eastern guilty and awarded him 1. 5 million in damages, which were never paid, due to appeals. Gellert also filed a grievance to get reinstated as a pilot , which he won but Eastern refused to instate him as a full time pilot . The bottom line is that eastern was making life hard on Gillard because he wanted to do the right thing , he was aware of a problem which he tried to bring to the attention of the executives in charge . He was a dedicated employee and was only concerned about the safety of the people Eastern was flying and in turn Eastern continues to punish him and make his life extremely hard. I believe what has happened in the above summary of the Eastern airline case is that which is common among whistle blowers. Employees that decide to blow the whistle on big business for the greater good of the people are often subject to countless acts of discrimination. Employees are often demoted, pushed aside, put down ,alienated from the industry, and made their lives extremely uncomfortable for the mere fact that they tried to do the right thing. Gellert felt that the autopilot was defective yet management refused to listen, and then when it was to late and an accident occurred management didn’t want to know , because they didn’t want to except responsibility for not addressing the problem in the first place. If anything Gellert should have been rewarded for trying to prevent a disaster but instead, as is common for many whistle blowers he was punished. Employees who discover apparent wrong-doing have several options, they can turn a blind eye and continue as normal, raise the matter internally and hope for the best, blow the whistle outside while trying to remain anonymous, blow the whistle and take the full force of employer disapproval, resign and remain silent, or resign and blow the whistle. The key is minimizing the risk to you as an employee. As I have shown to blow the whistle requires a great deal of care and patience. Yet sometimes employees do not always make good judgements in the heat of the moment. Allowing himself or herself to be more vulnerable then someone who takes the time to plan and receive advice to do it right. Some simple questions will help to minimize your risk and determine if blowing the whistle is really necessary. First, make sure the situation is one that warrants whistle blowing. Secondly, you should carefully examine your motives. Third, verify and document your information. Fourth, determine the type of wrongdoing involved and to whom it should be reported. Fifth, state your allegations in appropriate ways. Sixth, decide whether the whistle blowing should be internal or external and if it should be open or anonymous. Seventh, make sure you follow proper guidelines in reporting the wrongdoing. And last you should consult a lawyer and anticipate as well as document retaliation. With all this said there is really no sure way to go about making the right choice on weather to blow the whistle or not. Employees that are forced to blow the whistle are often forced to do so because their concerns are not given fair hearings by their employers. This results in damage to both the whistleblower and the organization. Yet if wrong doing with in an organization go undetected, they can result in even in greater damage to the workforce, and the public at large. Whistle blowing is an effective way to regulate business internally and should not be discriminated against. In researching this paper it has come to my attention that whistle blowers may never have it easy. The possibility of causing career suicide should be maintained at the lowest level possible. A good indication of the how genuinely ethical our society is how organizations treats its whistleblowers. I can only hope that we will improve in the next coming century than continue on the course we have set for ourselves in the past. I strongly believe that society owes an immense gratitude to its whistle blowers and that they will soon be praised for coming forward instead of punished. Blowing the Truth out I would like to first explain what whistle blowing is and detail some the following important moral issues that go along with whistle blowing. I will try to show how this could affect any one by going over a classic case of an Eastern Airlines pilot . As well as considering how an individual can protect him or herself from becoming the victim when trying to blow the whistle. Under what circumstances, if any, is whistle blowing morally justified? Some people have argued that whistle blowing is never justified because employees have absolute obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to the organization for which they work. People who argue this way see no difference between employees who reveal trade secrets by selling information to competitors, and whistle – blowers who disclose activities harmful to others. This position is similar to another held by some business people that the sole obligation of corporate executives is to make a profit for the stockholders. If this were true, corporate executives would have no obligations to the public. However, no matter what one’s special obligation, one is never exempt from the general obligations we have to our fellow human beings. One of the most fundamental of these obligations is not to cause harm to others. Corporate executives are no more exempt from this obligation than other people. Corporations in democratic societies are run with the expectations that they will function in ways that are compatible with the public interest. Corporations in democratic societies are also run with the expectations that they will not only obey the law governing their activities, but will not do anything that undermines basic democratic processes, such as bribing public officials. In addition to having the obligation to make money for stockholders, corporate executives have the obligation to see that these obligations are complied within an organization. They also have obligations to the company’s employees, for example to maintain a safe working place. It is the failure of corporate executives to fulfill obligations of the types mentioned that create the need for whistle blowing. Just as the special obligations of corporate executives to stockholders cannot override their more fundamental obligations to others, the special obligations of employees to employer cannot override their more fundamental obligations. Such as obligations of confidentiality and loyalty cannot take precedence over the fundamental duty to act in ways that prevent unnecessary harm to others. Agreements to keep something secret have no moral standing unless the secret is itself morally justifiable. For example a no person can have an obligation to keep a secret of a plot to murder someone, because murder is an immoral act. It is for this reason also that employees have a legal obligation to report an employer who has committed or is about to commit a felony. Although there are obvious differences between the situation of employees who work for government agencies and those who work for private firms, if we leave apart the special case in which national security was involved, then the same principles apply to both. The Codes of Ethics of Government Service to which all government employees are expected to conform requires that employees put loyalty to moral principles and the national interest above loyalty to the public parties or the agency for which they work. Neither can one justify participation in an illegal or immoral activity by arguing that one was merely following orders. It has also been argued that whistle blowing is always justified because it is an exercise of the right to free speech. But, the right to free speech is not perfect. An example to shout â€Å"Fire† in a crowded theater because that is likely to cause a panic in which people may be injured. Similarly, one may have a right to speak out on a particular subject, in the sense that there are no contractual agreements which prohibit him/her from doing so, but it may be the case that it would be morally wrong for one to do so because it would harm innocent people, such as one’s fellow workers and stockholders who are not responsible for the wrongdoing being disclosed. The fact that one has the right to speak out does not mean that one should do so in every case. But this kind of consideration cannot create an complete prohibition against whistle-blowing because one must weigh the harm to fellow workers and stockholders caused by disclosure against the harm to others caused by allowing the organizational wrong to continue. Further more, the moral principles that you must consider all people’s interests equally prohibits giving preference to one’s own group. So there most be considered justification for not giving as much weight to the interest of the stockholders investing in corporate firms because they do so with the knowledge that they take on financial risk if management acts illegally or immorally. Same as if the employees of a company know that it is engaged in illegal or immoral activities and do not take action, including whistle blowing, to end the activities, then they must bear some of the guilt for the actions. These in turn cancel the principles that one should refrain from blowing the whistle because speaking out would cause harm to the organization. Unless it can be shown that the harm to the employees and stockholders would be significantly greater than the harm caused by the organizational wrong doing, the obligation to avoid unnecessary harm to the public must come first. This must be true even when there is specific agreements not to speak out. Because ones obligation to the public overrides one’s obligation to maintain secrecy. If the arguments which I have just made are valid then the position of whistle blowing is never justified because it involves a violation of loyalty and confidentiality, or that whistle blowing is always right because it is an exercise of the right to free speech and is morally justified. Then the obligation a person has to prevent avoidable harm to others overrides any obligations of confidentiality and loyalty, making it an obligation to blow the whistle on illegal or unethical acts. Now that I have set down some moral ground rules that help determine if your responsible or justified in blowing the whistle on big business, I would like to share with you an example of what happened to a company and a employee of a company that has had the whistle blown on them. In this first case a pilot of eastern whistle comes clean on what he suspects to be serious design problem with the new Lockheed 1011, wide body aircraft. At the time Dan blew the whistle, he was flying regularly scheduled flights for Eastern airlines as well as being involved in flight training and engineering safety, for Eastern airlines. Mr. Gellert was also a graduate of Air Force Safety School, the Army Crash Survival Investigators coarse, and the aerospace Systems Safety, all highly regarded safety courses. The problem, which Mr. Gellert suspected, was of unexplainable crashes in a flight simulator while using the auto pilot system . The L-1011 defect involved the complex interaction between the crew and the autopilot and related instruments, which they relied upon to conduct a safe approach to a runway when landing the aircraft. Mr. Gellert became aware of the problem on a routine flight while using the L-1011. While flying the aircraft with the autopilot engaged and cruising at 10,000 feet with 230 passengers, Gellert dropped his flight plan. As he went to pick it up, his elbow hit the control stick in front of him causing the plane to go in a steep dive something that should not happen. Fortunately, he was able to grab the stick and ease the plane back on course. What had happened was that that while bumping the stick, he had tripped off the autopilot. Instead of holding the plane at 10,000 feet, it had switched from its â€Å"command mode† to â€Å"control steering†. As a result, when the stick moved forward, causing the plane to dive, the autopilot, rather than holding the aircraft on course held it in a dive. There was no warning to the pilot, such as alarms or light and the autopilot’s altimeter indicated that the plane was flying at 10,000 feet, a dangerously wrong reading. After this incident Gellert told an Eastern management official what had happened and the official replied â€Å"we’ll look into it. But three months later from the time he reported the incident an Eastern airlines flight approaching Miami International Airport crashed. The crew had used the autopilot to land the plane and it had malfunctioned crashing into the everglades. The first step that Mr. Gellert took in blowing the whistle on Eastern airlines and Lockheed was to write a two page evaluation of the auto pilots problems and send them to, Frank Borman, then vice-president of operations; Floyd Hall, chairman of the board , and Samuel Higgenbottom, president of operations. The only response was from Borman that said, it was â€Å"pure folly† that the autopilot caused the accident. He also sent two copies to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board. ) which agreed with Gellert and asked him to testify against Eastern and Lockheed. Even with his testimony on his experiences with the auto pilot system NTSB found that a defect in the autopilot caused the crash, but attributed the tragedy to â€Å"pilot error† because the crew did not react fast enough. At this point eastern has done nothing to keep Gellert from doing his job . Until he had the same situation happened to him on two separate occasions, which prompted him to write a twelve-page petition to the NTSB as well as to top management. Gellert was immediately demoted to co-pilot. â€Å"Twice a year pilots bid on a base, a position, or a particular aircraft. † The first indication that he was being penalized by the company for his written petitions. At the same time the NTSB began to put pressure on eastern to make alterations to it’s aircraft’s. The pressure that went along with confronting eastern management forced Gillert to take a three- year leave of absence. And when Gillert decided to return to work, eastern denied him, questioning his ability to fly an aircraft concerned with his mental state. Eastern grounded Gillert indefinitely. A civil suit was filed and won by Gellert . The jury found Eastern guilty and awarded him 1. 5 million in damages, which were never paid, due to appeals. Gellert also filed a grievance to get reinstated as a pilot , which he won but Eastern refused to instate him as a full time pilot . The bottom line is that eastern was making life hard on Gillard because he wanted to do the right thing , he was aware of a problem which he tried to bring to the attention of the executives in charge . He was a dedicated employee and was only concerned about the safety of the people Eastern was flying and in turn Eastern continues to punish him and make his life extremely hard. I believe what has happened in the above summary of the Eastern airline case is that which is common among whistle blowers. Employees that decide to blow the whistle on big business for the greater good of the people are often subject to countless acts of discrimination. Employees are often demoted, pushed aside, put down ,alienated from the industry, and made their lives extremely uncomfortable for the mere fact that they tried to do the right thing. Gellert felt that the autopilot was defective yet management refused to listen, and then when it was to late and an accident occurred management didn’t want to know , because they didn’t want to except responsibility for not addressing the problem in the first place. If anything Gellert should have been rewarded for trying to prevent a disaster but instead, as is common for many whistle blowers he was punished. Employees who discover apparent wrong-doing have several options, they can turn a blind eye and continue as normal, raise the matter internally and hope for the best, blow the whistle outside while trying to remain anonymous, blow the whistle and take the full force of employer disapproval, resign and remain silent, or resign and blow the whistle. The key is minimizing the risk to you as an employee. As I have shown to blow the whistle requires a great deal of care and patience. Yet sometimes employees do not always make good judgements in the heat of the moment. Allowing himself or herself to be more vulnerable then someone who takes the time to plan and receive advice to do it right. Some simple questions will help to minimize your risk and determine if blowing the whistle is really necessary. First, make sure the situation is one that warrants whistle blowing. Secondly, you should carefully examine your motives. Third, verify and document your information. Fourth, determine the type of wrongdoing involved and to whom it should be reported. Fifth, state your allegations in appropriate ways. Sixth, decide whether the whistle blowing should be internal or external and if it should be open or anonymous. Seventh, make sure you follow proper guidelines in reporting the wrongdoing. And last you should consult a lawyer and anticipate as well as document retaliation. With all this said there is really no sure way to go about making the right choice on weather to blow the whistle or not. Employees that are forced to blow the whistle are often forced to do so because their concerns are not given fair hearings by their employers. This results in damage to both the whistleblower and the organization. Yet if wrong doing with in an organization go undetected, they can result in even in greater damage to the workforce, and the public at large. Whistle blowing is an effective way to regulate business internally and should not be discriminated against. In researching this paper it has come to my attention that whistle blowers may never have it easy. The possibility of causing career suicide should be maintained at the lowest level possible. A good indication of the how genuinely ethical our society is how organizations treats its whistleblowers. I can only hope that we will improve in the next coming century than continue on the course we have set for ourselves in the past. I strongly believe that society owes an immense gratitude to its whistle blowers and that they will soon be praised for coming forward instead of punished.

BIOLOGY GENETICS PROBLEMS AND ANTIBIOTICS Essay - 1

BIOLOGY GENETICS PROBLEMS AND ANTIBIOTICS - Essay Example All combinations are represented and would therefore occur. After pollination a plant with rough stems and yellow flowers with pollen from another plant of the same species having rough stems and white flowers, adequate precautions being taken to prevent pollination occurring in any other way, 80 seeds were obtained. The F1 phenotypic ratio is 3:1:3:1, rough yellow, smooth yellow, rough white, smooth white. The genotypic ratio is 1:1:2:2:1:1. All combinations have occurred, but two showed elevated results according to genotypic and phenotypic ratios. In the fruit fly Drosophila the wild type (normal) is grey in colour with wings that extend beyond the tip of abdomen. Among the mutants of Drosophila are two which are respectively distinguished by dark body colour (ebony) and a vestigial condition of the wings (vestigial) In guinea pigs, black coat colour is dominant to brown and short hair is dominant to long hair. These characters are not linked. A breeder has only stocks of pure breeding, long-haired brown and pure breeding, short-haired black guinea pigs. Since the breeder only has stocks of pure breeding long haired brown which would be homozygous recessive (bbss) and pure breeding short haired black which would be homozygous dominant (BBSS), F1 would yield 100% black short haired guinea pigs, with heterozygous genotype BbSs. (a) Self-pollination of one of the F, plants – self pollination of genotype TtGgRr would yield 64 genotypes total, 27 possible genotype combinations, and 8 phenotype combinations. The most notably going to the heterozygous genotype TtGgRr with 8 times. Phenotypes were tall green round, short green round, tall green wrinkled, short green wrinkled. There were no yellow plants. There were 8 possible genotypes yielding only genotypes leading to green and no yellow plants. Normal (wild-type) strains of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster have greyish brown bodies if developed on food media free of silver salts, but

Global Warming Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Global Warming - Essay Example Each of these shareholders has something to gain or to lose based upon their own interpretation and as such this topic has been a particularly messy one to understand and to define. Accordingly, this brief essay will attempt to briefly analyze this monolithic problem through the lens of one particular article that promotes the understanding that global warming is in fact something of a hoax. The article, entitled â€Å"The Global Warming Conundrum† discusses the fact that something of a a middle path to this ongoing debate that has been raging and consuming valuable time in the process should be engaged. Furthermore, this author will seek to make a determination with regards to the question of whether human action or natural causes best explains the climate fluctuations that planet earth has recently been chronicling. Lastly, as a function of the previous points of discussion and analysis, the author will attempt to proscribe a reasonable and performable set of steps and solut ions which both the scientific community and the world at large could and should seek to employ as a function of ameliorating the stress on planet earth and the issues at hand. Furthermore, as a means of bringing such an understanding about, the analysis will also rely upon relevant scientific publications on the topic as well as verifiable statistics and charts concerning overall levels of climate change and corresponding increases in CO2 emissions by humans over the past several decades. However, noting the global climate change is an issue is not, in and of itself sufficient. As such, the analysis will also consider the rapidly increasing demand that fossil fuels have been projected to assume over the next several decades and posit a potential alternative to further environmental degradation (Fowler 43). Firstly, the author of the article presents contrary point of view that strongly believes that the swings in climate change are the direct result of the presence of high amounts of human CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing a greenhouse effect on the planet and thereby causing world temperatures to rise. Prima fascia of this argument is the belief that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the changes to the global climate. It follows therefore that those which ascribe to this point of view are the most vehement that drastic and immediate changes to the manner in which human beings interact with planet earth and seek to use her resources in order to achieve a high standard of living be re-assessed as a function of whether such practices are best for the future health and longevity of the planet. However, the biggest drawback to this particular line of reasoning is the fact that the overall extent to which human CO2 factors into the percentage of total CO2 generated by planet earth on a yearly basis is so miniscule as to be laughable. Indeed, numerous studies have convincingly noted that human CO2 emissions only account for around 4% of total earth CO2 re lease in any given calendar year. Although this by no means relieves humans of their responsibility towards the planet, it does however help put into perspective the precise scope of this problem and the means by which it should be sought to be rectified. The problem with this point of view, as the article indicates, is of course the fact that the main causal factors for global climate change with respect to the recent changes in temperature patterns have not been considered. For instance, there is a preponderance of evidence that the size and heat the sun generates is of course non-uniform and varies depending on the level of solar flares and solar storm activity. As such, scientists have noted that beyond CO2

Deer hunting with dad Essay Example for Free

Deer hunting with dad Essay Some of us have had that life changing experience spent with our fathers or mothers. The bond between a father and son can be something truly magnificent whether it is a small or a large event. The accumulation of memories is what makes a relationship so special and deep, and what keeps a parent and child so close throughout life. Such memories become embarrassing stories in front of new dates, toast at weddings, eulogies at funerals, and lifelong memories of someone who might just not be around any longer. This is an account of the single most incredible bonding moment I have ever had with anyone, and fortunately it is a memory of the coolest man I have ever met, my father. For twenty years I have been gathering memories of my father and while some are bad, ninety nine percent of them are great ones. The one funny thing about memories is that you never realize they are going to be memories until long after the occurrence takes place. For instance when I was very young, if I were to misbehave in public my father would take me on what we now call spankin walks where I would be lead out the door by the wrist while my father spanked my lil bottom until his message was clear. At the time it was not such an enjoyable walk, but now I can look back and laugh with an appreciation for how I was raised. Unable to predict the magnitude of such an experience, at the age of twelve my father took me deer hunting for the first time ever. It was late October and as a high school football trainer, he finally had a Friday evening off and wanted to make the most of it. We drove south to my uncles farm in Owen County, Kentucky, and stayed the night in his very primitive trailer to stage an early morning hunt. That morning my father and I headed into the woods with our muzzle loading rifles; his was a hand made replica of a Kentucky Long Rifle and mine was a $100 starter rifle. We took our spots in a tree stand we built the Saturday before. The stand was perfect for two people; sitting back to back we could each see our respective ends of the fields as well as a decent distance into the woods on the opposite side of the stand. Most of the morning went by without any action at all, but I grew to learn just how squirrels prepared for the winter. As the afternoon approached, my Dad asked me if I was ready to go back to the trailer for lunch to which I replied in a lil while, Im not too hungry yet. About twenty minutes later in a blur came a deer out into the field in front of me, so I shouldered my gun, took aim and fired. My father was half asleep and with no warning of my shot he almost fell out of the tree stand. When he turned and looked he saw the same magnificent eight point buck that was just as scared as he was. The deer took to running and Dad spun around his gun and took a desperation shot at the sprinting whitetail but his bullet found the side of the ridge instead of his moving target. With the deer out of sight we began to look at my gun and to see why the weapon had malfunctioned when I pulled the trigger. Upon further investigation, we found that after the hammer struck the cap to ignite the spark, the spark did not ignite the powder that was lodged in the barrel resulting in a misfire. Disappointed and disgruntled we made our way out of the tree and began the journey back to the campsite. Upon returning to the trailer, my Uncle and his three friends were waiting to hear a success story after hearing several shots coming from our area of the farm. After explaining the event we began to disassemble my gun and figure out the reason for its malfunction. At the bottom of the barrel we found a small piece of cloth that my father left in the barrel after cleaning the weapon. At that point I do not know who was more disappointed, Dad or me, since my golden opportunity was spoiled. I placed no blame on him, but I could tell his guilt would haunt him regardless. Since that day Dad has lost interest in deer hunting for reasons unknown to me, but he did spark a passion in his son to succeed at a task that I have yet to master. Eight years later I still have not had an opportunity at a trophy like the one that eluded us that day, but I have tried every fall and winter since then. The drive that I have to go into the woods for hours on end every season might have subliminal reasons that I have not truly thought about until I began to brainstorm for this project. I have begun to realize  I might be trying to put a perfect ending on a nearly perfect afternoon with my father. Like any other memory, this one had no significant meaning until much later in life when the misfortunes can be laughed at due to a much deeper meaning of the tale. It is a story I can be proud of when it is recited in front of dates, at my wedding, or, God forbid, in a eulogy. Its a story that is only a portion of the memories that I have accumulated over the years. It is a story that I will never forget and will always recall when I need it. Since then my father an I have become closer and this experience will bond us together for the rest of our lives. I can only hope that my father can provide such a memory for my twelve year old younger brother.

Patriot Act Essay -- essays research papers

The USA Patriot Act is very important to everyone in the United States of America. There are many people that are anti-patriot act because they feel it infringes on there constitutional rights. At the same time, there are enormous amounts of people that are pro-patriot act putting the safety of the home front as their number one priority. This act was very instrumental in giving our intelligence agencies the tools necessary to intercept terrorist messages and fore warn us of any possible attacks.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Patriot act positives out weigh the negatives. The positives are law enforcement being able to use surveillance that investigators used to investigate organized crime and drug traffickers. The Federal Bureau of Investigations can now use wiretaps to investigate possible terrorist when before they were only allowed to use them to investigate organized crime and drug traffickers. The Patriot Act allowed enforcement or investigating agencies to collect information when looking into terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing. The Act allowed the FBI to seek court authorization to use the same actions in national security investigations to track terrorists such as roving wiretaps. Federal courts in constricted circumstances have allowed law enforcement agencies to delay for a limited time when the person’s judicially approved search warrant is...