Write a paragraph Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Write a paragraph - Essay Example Nash equilibrium has its implications both positive and negative. Positively, each player has the advantage of getting the expected payoff given what the opponent plays. Negatively, this strategy is not applicable in all cases. This is because there can be pure strategy normative expectations equilibria which are not Nash equilibria. The prisoner’s dilemma is an example of such a case scenario (Julian & Wolfgang, 2000). Nash equilibrium may not be Nash equilibrium at all in the event that one would like to have a little bit of extra credit. This is based on the fact that it places one in compromising scenarios in which it leaves the player with no option other than not opting for not being part of the whole process. In a bar, the goods and services on sale are not returnable and so once consumed it is as good as gone. This will constantly leave the owner of the bar at a loss since there is no positive payoff in the sense that he will always stand a chance of losing in all the possible outcomes (Julian & Wolfgang,

Genetically modified organisms Essay Example for Free

Genetically modified organisms Essay Genetically modified foods (GMF) have foreign genes such as plants, animals and bacteria inserted into their genetic codes. Genetically modified organism is processed in a way that does not occur naturally. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology. There are alternative names for genetically modified foods, such as â€Å"genetically engineered, biotechnology,† genetic modification, or transgenic. † Genetically modified organisms allows scientist to speed up the process by moving desired genes from one plant into another, sometimes from an animal to a plant, for example they take a genetic material from a number of different sources from virus and bacteria and they insert it into the soybean plant, which herbicide usually kills the plant but because of the genetic modified organism it does not. Genetic modified food is dangerous because it greatly expands the scope for horizontal gene transfer and recombination; this process creates new viruses and bacteria that cause disease, epidemics, and trigger cancerous cells. Genetically modified foods are dangerous because it can cause harmful effects on human health (What are Genetically Modified (GM) Foods GM Products: Benefits and Controversies). Many foods in the United States contain genetically modified organism, such as corn, soy, sugar and aspartame. In most of the foods we eat today contain those ingredients and most people do not even realize that they are eating genetically modified food because labeling the food is not mandatory in most of the United States. The reason scientist developed genetically modified organism is because they believe it will provide more nutritious food, tastier food, cheaper food supply, ability to farm in unfavorable climates, faster growing plants and animals, possibility of disease fighting foods, improving the lives of farmers and less pesticides used but there are many risk that cancel out the potential good of genetically modified organism, for example endocrine disruptors, organ damage, decreased fertility, increased allergies, and more pesticide resistance. However Europe is protesting against genetically modified foods since they were first created. Studies in Europe say â€Å"The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another was supposed to be a giant leap forward, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health† (What are Genetically Modified (GM) Foods GM Products: Benefits and Controversies,). UK says â€Å"The simple truth is, we do not need genetically modified technology in order to possess future food security. Using sustainable and organic farming methods will allow us to repair the damage done by industrial farming, reducing the excessive use of fertilizer, herbicides and other man-made chemicals, and making genetically modified crops redundant† (Genetically Engineered Crops). The United States does not realize that it is bad for you but Europe, UK, Japan, and Australia bans all genetically modified foods for their safety and health. In the United States the FDA does not require any safety test for genetically modified foods because they know majority of people will not buy genetically modified foods. European has been the most concerned with genetically modified foods, everyone one should be concerned about these important factors (Gardner). Genetically modified food has many dangerous effects on the world, for instance genetically modified foods actually lose nutritional content in the process of altering their genetic genes. Some genetically modified foods may contain higher levels of allergens and toxins, which can have negative outlook on the personal health of those who eat genetic foods. Viruses and bacteria are used in the process of modifying foods, which means that there is a possibility that they could cause the development of a new disease. Also genetically modified foods could potentially cause damage to other organisms in the ecosystems where they are grown. If these organisms are killed off, it leads to a loss of biodiversity in the environment (What are Genetically Modified (GM) Foods GM Products: Benefits and Controversies,). Animals and people have become seriously ill or died from genetically modified foods because bacteria have been inserted into our food and our bodies cannot fight off these diseases. Even our environment has been damaged because gene pollution cannot be cleaned up, once genetically modified organisms, such as bacteria and viruses are released into the air it is difficult to recall or contain them. Toxins have also been the cause of killing people and animals by one or more extremely poisonous substances that unexpectedly appeared in this food supplement. Single genes should not be transferred to a foreign environment; their effects are unknown and therefore cause unknown harmful effects to the human health: â€Å"The reason that genetically engineered food could be dangerous is because there has been no adequate testing to ensure that extracting genes that perform an apparently useful function as part of that plant or animal is going to have the same effects if inserted into a totally unrelated species. A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture will lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of all non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material† (Genetically Engineered Crops). Monsanto is an agricultural company that first produced genetically modified foods. Monsanto is not worried about health of others; there main concern is the business. They hear of many lives being in danger from genetically modified food but they are not concerned with this because they are making money. There is no long-term safety testing for genetically modified food. Genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have never been part of the human food supply to change the fundamental nature of the food we eat. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe. . They say, There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans (Wilcox). Genetically modified foods are bad for everyone because it can cause harm to humans, animals and the environment. Genetically modified food should be tested, and labeled so humans have the choice to purchase the food items or keep away from them. The main reason the United States has not banned genetically modified food is simply because most people do not even know what foods contain these harmful ingredients. If the FDA made a law that genetically modified foods are to be labeled many families would chose not to eat those foods because of the dangers it causes to the world. Work Cited Wilcox, Christine. The very real dangers of genetically modified foods. †. The Atlantic, 9 2012. Web. 12 Nov 2012. Genetically Engineered Crops. Center for food safety, 5 2012. Web. 12 Nov 2012. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms. What are Genetically Modified (GM) FoodsGM Products: Benefits and Controversies. U. S. Department of Energy Genome Programs, 17 2012. Web. 12 Nov 2012. Gardner, Richard. Pros and Cons of GM Foods. Arguments for GM Foods, Arguments Against GM Foods. N. p. , 30 2012. Web. 12 Nov 2012. Villano, Caren. Genetically Modified Foods. What are genetically modified foods, Advantages, Types of genetically modified crops. N. p. , n. d. Web. 12.

History of Refugee Integration in the UK

History of Refugee Integration in the UK Is it accurate to say that the UK has a proud history of providing sanctuary for genuine refugees? In 1951, the United Nations passed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (known as the Refugee Convention). The aim of this was to protect persons, in the wake of the Second World War, being returned to states and nations where they would suffer persecution. It was the first codification of a practice which is in fact centuries old; that of developed countries offering protection and sanctuary to individuals who suffer such persecution. Since its inception and ratification, the Refugee Convention has been viewed variously as a positive advance, and increasingly in recent years, as a hindrance to the United Kingdom’s policies of migration control. Although no country has ever withdrawn from the Convention, this option has been suggested in Britain as a possible solution to the perceived problems relating to immigration which the UK faces. How is it, then, that a country that prides itself on its history of providing sanctuary and protection to refugees, can be contemplating such a withdrawal from the codification of immigrant policy? The truth is that the belief of the United Kingdom’s relationship with immigrants is somewhat less appealing than the ‘proud history’ of public perception suggests. Nor is this proud history the only myth relating to the UK’s relationship with immigration. It is similarly untrue to state that the UK is an immigration honey pot. The UK is certainly an attractive place for genuine refugees from persecution to approach. Official figures and patterns, however, suggest that the reality is somewhat different and that the scare-mongering and rabble-rousing employed by anti-immigrationists is somewhat misplaced. What, then, is a refugee? It is interesting that while persons and populations fleeing their homelands to escape persecution and suffering is as old as any civilisation, the term ‘refugee’ is itself a relatively modern and highly specific term. One tends to think of ‘refugees’ as any in-migrant to, in this case, the British Isles, whether they be fleeing political or economic persecution, or indeed, in some cases, whether they are simply seeking a better life in a new country. The modern, accepted definition of a refugee is to be found in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, which describes a refugee as any person who has been considered a refugee under various other agreements, but more specifically, to a person who as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events is unable or, owing to such fears, is unwilling to return to it.[1] There follows various provisions for a person so described ceasing to be classed as a refugee, for example where that person has re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality. Having defined broadly what the statutory definition of a refugee is, the next question which ought to be considered is why such a person would wish to come to the UK? As shall be discussed, the UK has not always had such a proud history of offering sanctuary to refugees. This does not, however, detract from the fact that in the post-Second World War years, but even in eras prior to that, the UK has been seen as a very welcoming and attractive prospect for refugees. Compared to certain Western countries, both within Europe and also in the wider economically developed ‘West’ (Australia providing the most stark example), Britain’s policies (and policies should be distinguished from actual practice and results here) have been relatively relaxed. The exact nature of these policies will be examined. Aside from these, the attractions of the United Kingdom to refugees are that the Isles offer political and religious freedom and liberty. The fact that the Church of Englan d is part of the Establishment, this is less and less important in an increasingly secularised state, and anyway unimportant because of the primacy accorded to religious tolerance. Within the UK, refugees will suffer no systematic and State-sponsored persecution as they might elsewhere. As will become apparent, however, this certainly does not mean that refugees granted sanctuary within the UK are guaranteed freedom from such persecution at the hands of the grass-roots population. There is, then, an important distinction to be remembered when considering the history of Britain as a provider of sanctuary to refugees. This distinction is between the official State attitude to immigration and sanctuary, most recognisably apparent, of course, in legislation, and the attitudes of the population, all-too-often categorised by prejudices and narrow-mindedness, and manifested in attacks and effectively persecution of such refugees. The first significant period of modern British history in which refugees became significant is that covering the years, roughly, from 1880 until the inception of the Refugee Convention in 1951. During this period, which witnessed the two largest sudden occurrences of mass-population movement occasioned by the two World Wars, Britain found herself facing a new problem, sensitive and difficult both in humanitarian terms, and also political feasibility. The first major piece of British legislation which considered the issue of refugees was the Aliens Act 1905. Prior to this, there had been a series of Acts which sought to impose some sort of system of regulation of arriving aliens. Mostly, these required masters of in-bound ships to make reports of foreign aliens that they were carrying, and obliged all in-coming aliens to report to the Secretary of State upon arrival. The 1905 Act, however, introduced the first system of comprehensive registration and immigration control. The Act place d control of such matters firmly with the Home Secretary. The most striking aspect of this new legislation was that it offered, for the first time, the Home Secretary the power to deport aliens whom he believed to be either criminals or paupers. The first category is understandable and, but 21st century standards even acceptable; the second is not. The second major piece of legislation followed in 1914, with the Aliens Registration Act. This had more tangible effects on the accuracy of information relating to immigrants, as it made it compulsory for all immigrants over the age of 16 to register with the police. The immigrants were required to give detailed information to the police of their names, addresses, occupations and race. If any such particulars changed, immigrants were required to register such changes. There was also a registration fee. Although the legislation looks to be relatively favourable to immigrants, the reality was somewhat different. This was largely due to the fact that the Aliens Act was weakly enforced. As Winder states, it soon became obvious that the scheme was ‘clumsy and unworkable’.[2] This, then, was the legislation that was in place when the Great War broke out. The effect of the war on immigration was to bring about a massive influx of refugees from Russia and Belgium who sought sanctuary from persecution. A disproportionate number of these immigrants, particularly from Russia, were Jews. The influx led to an anti-alien backlash amongst the British population, however, although this was not indiscriminate. The unfortunate Germans did, of course, bear the brunt of this, but these were rarely ‘refugees’ as we understand the term today. The fortunes of the Russian Jews, for example, was different, on occasion, from that of the Belgians. Jews had been banished from Moscow in1890, and their migration was therefore enforced. They provided an example of a genuine refugee, and sought to enter Britain as an alternative to their former place of residence. It is estimated that between 1881 and 1914, the number of Jews arriving as 150,000.[3] Although Britain had set up the Board of Guardians for the Relief of the Jewish Poor, the backlash was encouraged by the ever-increasing number of Jewish arrivals. This is perhaps an early example of the disparity between what can be seen as state charity and willingness to accommodate, and the uglier grass-roots antipathy to the effects of such policy. ‘In Britain, the newly arrive Jews were the chief victims of the anti-immigration lobby.’[4] Anti-Jewish feeling is what characterised the first half of the twentieth century, and this did not simply improve as the spectre of Nazi-ascendancy loomed. If anything, it became more institutionalised. In a report from the police of 1939 relating to the immigration of Jewish refugees, Jennifer Williams wrote that ‘it may be remarked in passing however that the tone of their [the police’s] report is predominantly anti-Jewish.’[5] Indeed the UK as a whole was slow to respond to the persecution of the Jews in its immigration policy, providing perhaps the worst example of how the UK has failed in its treatment of genuine refugees. The most striking example of this occurred in response to the Anschuss; Hitler’s annexation of Austria in March 1938. Britain was not alone, but her response was far from commendable. Along with other countries of first refuge, Britain’s Jewish refugee organisation was quick to exclude future entrants and asserted its right t o select who it would support.[6] In an example of state as opposed to grass-roots policy toward refugees, the British government ‘moved rapidly to re-introduce a visa requirement to stem the influx of refugee Jews.’[7] Any discussion of Britain’s ‘proud history’ of providing sanctuary to genuine refugees must acknowledge that in the European Jews’ most desperate time of need, the UK, both at government and at grass-roots level, took active measures to prevent immigration of the needy. The second significant period in a discussion of the relationship of Britain with refugees is that from the inception of the Refugee Convention in 1951 through till the late 1960; a period that witnessed an increasing dissipation of the British Empire. It was this phenomenon, rather than the enforcement of the Refugee Convention, that led to this period being seen as ‘good’ period for refugees in Britain. Two significant Acts of Parliament in this period were the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts of 1962 and 1968. These characterised not only the attitudes of the state towards refugees, but also what could be, and has been, seen as an attempt to use the influx of immigrants to Britain in the post-war years as an advertisement for Britain’s generous policies towards refugees. It is here that another important distinction must be remembered; that between immigrants and ‘refugees’ as defined in the 1951 Convention. During the period from the end of the War till the Act, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the UK were not classed as refugees. They came, rather, from Commonwealth and former Empire countries. As such, they enjoyed relatively easy access to Britain and the influx of, for example, West Africans, has been well documented. In little more than a decade, it has been estimated that more than 300,000 immigrants arrived.[8] This was accompanied by an increase amongst the population of violence towards such communities (the immigrants, of course, tending to congregate together in geographical locations). The immigrants themselves were not wholly without blame, and reports abounded of violence and crime orchestrated by the immigrants themselves. It was the response of the domestic British population, however, that was most problematic . The Government’s response was a new work-permit scheme which, as Winder points out, had been carefully devised so as to ‘exclude coloured workers without discriminating against them too explicitly.’[9] The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was an example of the Government bowing to public pressure to take action, and as Rab Butler commented, it was a ‘sad necessity’. It was in this period after the Refugee Convention that the distinction became significant between refugee as defined in the Convention and simple asylum seekers. The former were required to demonstrate that they had a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution at home. Political asylum applied, technically, to those who were evading arrest in another country on account of their political beliefs and where they could not expect a fair trial in that country. Subsequently, the distinction would become blurred and problematic, but in this period it was still a significant distinction, largely because of the provisions of the Refugee Convention and the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts. The 1962 Act required all Commonwealth citizens seeking employment in the United Kingdom to qualify for an employment voucher. Those without a British passport were also required to hold a work permit, which were not that easy to come by. The 1968 Act further tightened measures relating to immigrants. Und er this Act, potential immigrants had to prove that either they, their parents or grandparents had been born in the UK. The effect of this is obvious; for many, indeed most, this is an impossible requirement, and the Acts reflect the growing antipathy towards large scale immigration while at the same time, advertising Britain as a country that looked after and welcomed refugees and other immigrants. The final definable period is that from around the late 1960s until the present day, a period which has seen the number of refugees entering or seeking to enter Britain increase dramatically. The period has been characterised, again, by lenient and welcoming policies on the one hand, contrasted with stricter and prohibitive visa requirements and stricter interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The first occurrence in this trend was the legislation of 1971. The Immigration Act of that year rationalised the prior legislation relating to immigrants by dispensing with the existing distinction between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth entrants. One of the growing problems in this period related to race relations between the British indigenous population and the immigrant communities. The Race Relations Act 1965 had made racial discrimination illegal, but this did not stem the growing hostility between British people and their new neighbours. Much of this hostility was based upon scare-mongering by various elements within the British landscape both at grass-roots level and indeed in high politics. Refugees were to suffer as much as everyone else under such hostilities. It was estimated officially in the House of Commons in 1967 that the non-white population of Britain would reach 3.5 million as soon as 1985. This turned out not to be the case, as the first census to show a non-white population in 1991 recorded the number to be less than 3 million.[10] Such ‘estimates’ and figures were used by many both in government and the press to lobby for tighter controls and a stricter policy. There was, in this period, an increasing, and false, supposition that the number of immigrants (including refugees) would start to burden the welfare state unduly. This, of course, provided one of the biggest draws to all potential migrants to the UK; particularly, perhaps, to refugees. As Clarke points out, the post-war generation of immigrants would make demands on child welfare services and schools, they would make little demand on old aged pensions and geriatric care. Furthermore, the misconception about the overall scale and effect of immigration was based upon the fact that immigrant populations tended to be so concentrated in particular areas.[11] It was, then, against this backdrop of increasing public scepticism and hostility, that successive British governments in the 1970s and 1980s had to balance the increasing toll of despotic regimes causing higher numbers of refugees, and the capacity of the state to accommodate them. Unfortunately, the balance seems to have tilted away from the refugees as the British interpretation of the Convention has tightened. It is worth noting that the Refugee Convention has never been incorporated into British law, and the British Government is therefore under no obligation to observe it. It was not until the Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that the government was even obliged to consider it. Under this Act, nothing in British immigration rules and practice should contravene the Convention. The process of application for asylum is protracted and uncertain. There are now strict requirements and high levels of evidence to establish that one is a genuine refugee. An example of this is the need to pr ove that one is the member of a particular social group. How does one prove this? Another example of the British governments’ hardening attitudes towards immigrants is that those travelling to Britain through a third country are obliged to seek asylum there. This is, perhaps, a fair request, but it hardly reflects the policy of a country happy and willing to accommodate genuine refugees. The period since the 1880s has, then, seen a fluctuating level of concern for refugees seeking sanctuary within the UK. It cannot be said that Britain has a wholly proud history of accommodating genuine refugees, although her policies have tended to be slightly more lenient than her European and other Western neighbours’ (those seeking citizenship of the US must take a Constitutional exam to demonstrate their commitment to the country). It would be unfair to characterise successive British governments as being unaccommodating to genuine refugees, and there have been measures put in place genuinely aimed at helping such immigrants. Much of the suffering that immigrants have undergone has occurred once they have been granted sanctuary, at the hands of the indigenous population (both at grass-roots level and in the political arena), who have often been afraid of the potential draining effect of the nation’s resources of such incoming populations, and who often forget the s ignificant economic input such immigrants actually make. On balance, it would seem that it is inaccurate to say that Britain has a ‘proud history’ of granting asylum to genuine refugees. BIBLIOGRAPHY Statute Aliens Act 1905 Aliens Registration Act 1914 Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 Immigration Act 1971 Immigration Appeals Act 1993 Race Relations Act 1965 Secondary sources Brook, C. (Ed), The Caribbean in Europe (London, 1986) Clarke, P., Hope and Glory (Penguin, 1996) Halsey, A.H. (Ed), Trends in British Society Since 1900 (1972) Lawrence, D., Black Migrants, White Natives (Cambridge, 1974) Layton-Henry, Z., The Politics of Immigration (Blackwell, 1992) London, L., Whitehall and the Jews (Cambridge, 1999) Nairn, T., The Break-up of Britain (London, 1981) Winder, R., Bloody Foreigners, the story of immigration to Britain (London, 2004) Footnotes [1] Article 1(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951 [2] Winder, R., Bloody Foreigners, the story of immigration to Britain (London, 2004), p202 [3] Winder, p178 [4] Winder, p195 [5] J. Willians, Memorandum, 3 August 1939, quoted in London, L., Whitehall and the Jews (Cambridge, 1999), p278 [6] London, p58 [7] Ibid [8] Winder, p283 [9] Ibid [10] Clarke, P., Hope and Glory (Penguin, 1996), p326 [11] Ibid

Gettysburg :: essays research papers

There is a lot to say about the Battle of Gettysburg. Many people wonder why this battle out of all others during the war was so great. Many questions were asked. Such as, what did they do for supplies? How did they live? What was the typical military strategy? I will also answer many other questions to in this essay. It’s really hard to believe the things I saw during the movie. It just makes wonder how stupid the government was to even think about starting a Civil War. Millions and millions of men died in this war. For what? Honor? I certainly think they did not die honorably, but just went out there and got slaughtered. Although many people say that the Union and Confederate armies fought because of the importance of Gettysburg; the thing is that it was just a small town back then. Gettysburg was chosen because it was â€Å"good ground†. The Confederate army was passing through to go further north and invade the Union territory. The Union army was having the same idea about the south. Good ground was high terrain surrounded by trees. The role geography played in the war was that the army who was placed on the good ground would have a better position on the opposing forces. The officers and soldiers had different lifestyles during the war. The generals would be in cabins or log houses with plenty of supplies. The rest of the army had lived in tents with supplies, but not as much as the generals. So basically the higher your rank, the better you r living conditions were. Although living conditions were different, the strategy was similar. Many times the Union army had to play defensively. The development of trench warfare began. If supplies or ammo got too low, sometimes they would charge and attack the Southerners, like Colonel Chamberlain did when he was defending the line. The Confederate army under the command of General Lee would march all the way to the gate and try to capture it. When in combat, both sides had the same kind of artillery. Soldiers used muskets and small handguns and generals on the other hand would ride on horseback with a sword and pistol. Another type of weaponry that was used were cannons. Even though cannons were much more powerful, muskets were easier due to the fact that they were portable and fired rounds quicker.

Angela’s Ashes Comparative Commentary Essay

Although these two passages taken from the memoirs; Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt and Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Sallinger, are similar to each other in some aspects, such as mood, perceptions and attitudes towards death etc., their society, culture, and their ages make the contrast between their styles. In the passage from Catcher in the Rye, we see the 17-years-old Holden going to his brother Allie’s grave. From his comments about his brother’s death, we start to interpret his immature and irreverent character. â€Å"I know it’s only his body and all that’s in the cemetery, and his soul’s in Heaven and all that crap†¦Ã¢â‚¬  On the other hand, just like Frank McCourt’s, Holden’s anger, sadness and resentment is seen by his mood and tone. The 5-years-old little Frankie is already witness to his sister Margaret’s death, and now he losts his little brother Oliver. In this scene, where Oliver is buried in the graveyard, Frankie tries to understand the things around him with his childish curiosity and responses. â€Å"I did not want to leave Oliver with them. I threw a rock at a jackdaw that waddled over toward Oliver’s grave.† Nevertheless, although his age, Holden’s inability to come to terms with his brother’s death makes him angry and resentful. â€Å"All the visitors could get in their cars and turn on their radios and all and then go someplace nice for dinner – everybody except Allie. I couldn’t stand it.† There are some hints in the passages which suggest about the culture, societies and time the two memoirs took place. Holden says â€Å"the visitors could get in their cars and turn on their radios and all and then go someplace nice for dinner†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , whereas Frankie says â€Å"we rode to the hospital in a carriage with a horse† and â€Å"My mother and Aunt Aggie cried, Grandma looked angry, Dad, Uncle Pa Keating, and Uncle Pat Sheehan looked sad but did not cry and I thought that if you’re a mean you can cry only when you have the black stuff that is called the pint.† The â€Å"carriage with a horse† and the people â€Å"running like hell over to their cars† â€Å"and turn on their radios† show us that the scene from Angela’s Ashes took place many years before Catcher in the Rye. Moreover, with Frankie’s childish comment about his family, the men in his family appear as drinkers; this suggests about the Irish culture which all men are drinkers. The same comment also clearly shows us the difference between women and men in their culture. We also see that the two characters’ families and societies are Christian, and believe in the life after death. Holden says â€Å"I know it’s only his body and all that’s in the cemetery, and his soul’s in Heaven and all that crap, but I couldn’t stand it anyway.† On the other hand Frankie explains, â€Å"Dad said I shouldn’t throw rocks at jackdaws, they might be somebody’s soul. I didn’t know what a soul was but I didn’t ask him because I didn’t care.† Their perception towards religion is the same; they both believe in what is taught to them, but in both cases the characters’ sadness and anger are much greater then their religion now, when they lost their brothers whom they love and were connected so much. â€Å"I wish he wasn’t there. You didn’t know him. If you’d known him, you’d know what I mean.† â€Å"Oliver was dead and I hated jackdaws.† Both Frankie and Holden are alone with their thoughts and feelings; they cannot share them with anyone. Holden is too immature and powerless to face his brother’s death and Frankie’s parents wouldn’t answer his question marks about death. The two narrative characters cannot talk about or express their sorrow, they have to keep it inside and divert it into anger and hate of other things or people around them. â€Å"I’d be a man someday and I’d come with a bag of rocks and I’d leave the graveyard littered with dead jackdaws.† â€Å"All the visitors in the cemetery started running like hell over to their cars. That’s what nearly drove me crazy.† Hence the two characters need to heal theirselves by something else; writing.

Journal of Food Safety

As we know, Johor was affected by the worst flood in 100 years in December 2006 and that disaster comes again in January 2007. According to historical of the natural disasters such as flood, food in affected areas may become contaminated and consequently be at risk for outbreaks of food-borne diseases, including diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever. Poor sanitation, including lack of safe water and toilet facilities and lack of suitable conditions to prepare food have led to mass outbreaks of food-borne diseases. The Minister of Malaysia Health were worried about cases, the improper sanitary facilities and contaminated water supply during flood at housing areas or at relief centers would result in contaminated food, as a prevention step, Assistant Environmental Health Officers (AEHO) has assign to made monitoring of food hygiene vital. The objective of this monitoring is to describe food hygiene surveillance activities carried out in flood relief centers and flood affected areas and the result that were carried out was determined. The food hygiene surveillance activities were carried out by the Assistant Environmental Health Officers (AEHO) in the districts and. Among the surveillance activities carried out are inspection of food preparation areas in relief centers, inspection of food premises in flood affected areas and food sampling. Premise inspections were carried out using a specific inspection format. For food samples inspections, the food samples that were emphasis included ready to eat and raw foods. For ready to eat foods holding samples were also taken. Samples taken were sent to Public Health Laboratory, Johor Bahru for microbiological analysis. Anti typhoid vaccination for food handlers were also carried out. Apart from that, observations made by the health teams were also taken into account. A total of 3,159 food preparation areas in relief centers were inspected. During the same period, a total of 2,317 food premises in flood affected areas were inspected as soon these premises started operating after the floods. Among the processes that had given highlighting during inspection were holding and serving of food where temperatures control and holding time were vital for food safety. Along with the areas given emphasis during the inspection were kitchens, stores, food packaging areas, food transportation vehicles and serving areas. Cooking utensils, water sources, hand washing facilities, garbage disposal area, pest control and suitability of building structures for preparation of food were also given a big attention during the inspections. .Base on the inspection that have done by the Assistant Environmental Health Officers (AEHO), the inspections showed that 69 food preparation areas in relief centers and 181 food premises in flood affected areas had unsatisfactory hygiene. Not only food premises areas are considering in those inspections, apart from that, the hygiene and practices of all food handlers were also monitored. Insanitary food preparation areas in relief centers and food premises were given health education and warnings to maintain hygiene by the Assistant Environmental Health Officers (AEHO). A total of 1,566 holding samples were taken and 425 samples were sent to the laboratory for analysis. Base on the result, they have gathered out that 46 of the samples analyzed were found to be positive for pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli, staphylococcus aureus and salmonella. The health personnel from the Johor Health Department in various districts carried out an excellent job in ensuring food safety during the floods. There were no outbreaks of food poisoning. However analysis of food samples taken during the floods did show the presence of pathogenic organisms but probably their numbers were not high enough to cause any food poisoning. When the flood has affected some areas, the contamination from microorganism into food were easily contaminated, that contamination can always occur at all points of the food chain, for instants inadequate washing, handling and cooking of food just before consumption is still a prime cause of food-borne diseases. Many infectious diseases are preventable by observing simple hygienic rules during food preparation whether in family settings or in large food catering facilities. According to the guidelines provided by the World Health Organization (WHO), there are five keys for safer food in disaster situation such as keeping clean, separating raw and cooked food, cooking thoroughly, keeping food at safe temperatures and lastly using safe water and raw materials. As a rational, the education to all individuals have to concern more to avoid the unwanted condition occurs, for instant when a disaster such as flood occurs, the public would already understand and be prepared to apply their knowledge in hygiene and food safety. As an example, the hand washing method which involves seven steps needs to be imbibed into all individuals through health education campaigns so that it becomes a common practice amongst all individuals. As a very good solution the promotion and enforcement of food hygiene requirements should be carried out continuously to ensure that every individual understands the need for hygiene and food safety during disaster situation such as flood.