Research and Development of Anti-Retroviral Drugs Essay Example for Free

Research and Development of Anti-Retroviral Drugs Essay ‘Discuss the reasons why the research and development of anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) has impacted differently on people suffering from HIV/AIDS in developed and developing world’ HIV/AIDS still does not have a know cure, but has a treatment that slows down the affects of HIV/AIDS which is called ARV (anti-retroviral drug) The ARV drug is a very â€Å"exclusive† drug because as it is very expensive, around $400 a month if not more depending on which stage you are in, and that is a huge dilemma because many people cannot afford to pay that amount of money so they are not able to receive the treatment. If people in the first world countries cannot receive the drug, how do people in the third world receive the drug? In third world countries the drugs are given to them for free, but on the 47% gets the full treatment. The drugs are given to them by of the drug company itself of other companies that buy the ARVs from the company and send it to the place where it is needed, for example Africa. Africa is the location where the most HIV/AIDS cases are, and is also the one getting the least amount of treatment. The reason for this is because the ARV drug company wants to get their money back for all the research they put in, so giving the ARVs for free would become a great loss economically for them. The first aspect of this issue is the social part. Infrastructure is a big problem because as buildings coast a lot to construct they are not able to put up many, and you must also have trained people able to work there, which are hard to find in Africa. There are very few amount of places where you can go get tested but they have a limited amount of treatments and supplies. This is a huge problem because if people go to get better they have to wait or not get better at all due to the lack of resources. I would solve this issue by having not many small structures but several big structures so the supplies have a greater chance to arrive and more money is used wiser and more efficiently. Another social aspect of this problem is the education. In Africa the education is something that not everyon e gets, so they are not aware about how they get the disease, how they can prevent it or what are  the affects. A reason for why in Africa they do not receive the education is because there are a very few amount of teachers, and the teachers that they have may also be contaminated and are not able to execute their job correctly. HIV/AIDS affects everyone in their community because the disease spreads fast in their case (the people in Africa). This is due to their sexual behavior. Their culture does not have monogamy or a custom of only one sexual partner, but they have many different sexual partners, and that is why HIV/AIDS spreads so quickly in Africa. They also do not use protection because it is not available to most people and so chances are higher to get HIV/AIDS. Another cultural aspect is that there is a lot of prejudice against testing. Many people do not want to get tested for HIV/AIDS because one, they are scared the test might come back positive, second if it does result positive how will they tell their family/friends and thirdly how will they get the treatment they need to get. If the people get tested and do want to not tell anyone, because of various reasons, and as a result the problem amplifies and does not get solved. Another problem for the cultural aspect is get the people to take responsibility and try to change. Of coarse it is easier to ignore the problem and pretend it is not there, but that would not be helping the matter, it would be making it worse. How to solve these problems would be, in my opinion, have protection available to them, encourage testing, reassure the people that there will be a treatment for them, make them understand the severity of this issue and that if we do not take action it may get a lot worse, have session/groups for them to talk about their worries, experience ect. However before doing this we must solve the bigger problem, how do we give them the treatment for free. Another aspect of the issue is the ethical/moral part. The richer countries to some extent have an obligation to help the poorer countries, but the third world countries should not relay or take advantage because also the richer countries have their own problems to solve. For insists America is going though a very tough crisis but at the same time they are helping the less fortunate get better. The poorer countries should also take action and do something to help themselves, because they should be putting the money where it really needs to go to, the people. This leads us to another aspect of the issue, the political portion. Politics have caused a lot of mayhems in the world because they sometimes do not have they  priorities sorted out. For example in Africa instead of investing their money in this issue of HIV/AIDS and the treatments, they have decided to invest their money on weapons and in their natural recourses such as oil. It is very hard to run a third world country but it should not be an excuse. To solve these concerns although it is a difficult task but one way to solve them, in my opinion, is to have people from the first world talk and discuss about what they can do together (with the people of the third world) instead of just have the first world do everything on their own. The last aspect of this issue is the economic part. Africa is already a poor continent, having a poor economy is not helping either. They do not have enough money to circulate and this stops Africa growing, having sick people also stops the economy from growing because it is another matter they have to face. Child labor increases due to the fact that the adults are sick and are unable to work and the poor people have no way in getting better because there aren’t enough doctors. In conclusion a way to resolve the problem in the distribution of the ARVs is to have several multi-national pharmaceutical companies sponsor the ARVs, so other independent companies do not have to buy the drug and then distribute them, but by sponsoring the drug, the ARV drug company directly gives the drug to the third world countries without loosing it’s money. The multi-national pharmaceutical companies get advertisement and so they also gaining not loosing their money. As you can see this is a win, win situation. The main issue here is that the ARV drug company does not want to loose the money that they put in research so they make the drug excessively high-priced because to produce the drug is a coast next to nothing. Once the people receive the treatment, they should help educate not only the affected people but also the people that haven’t been affected yet. I believe by doing this, the transmission of the HIV/AIDS with decrease significantly and things will start to get better. I do believe that this problem is solvable.

Stroke Mortality Among Alaska Native People :: Article Review, Ronnie Horner

My article review is on, â€Å"Stroke Mortality Among Alaska Native People†, by Ronnie Horner. The Alaskan Natives have been suffering with the vast number of mortality rates caused by strokes. This article was written to successfully understand the Alaskan’s stroke problem or factors that contribute to this problem, and eventually find strategies that will aid in its prevention. The only problem that exists with trying to come up with strategies for prevention is the sparseness of the epidemiological data of the Alaskan Natives. It is hard to categorize the Alaskans in one separate group, the Horner states, â€Å"to its failure to consider Alaska Native People as one distinct cultural group, one among the many that comprise the American Indian/Alaska Native designation†(Horner 1). This creates a problem because it puts limitations on the efficiency of the epidemiology of the Alaskan Natives. With this being said, patterns have arisen in the number of stroke vict ims that are Alaskan Natives, â€Å"Stroke Mortality appears to be significantly elevated among relatively younger American Indians/Alaska Natives compared to US whites of similar age† (Horner 1). This shows that there must be an unknown factor that has led or caused the younger Natives to have a stroke. Something must had to change because the word â€Å"elevated† is used which indicates recently increased to what it normally was. It seems that Alaskan Natives are the number one ethnic group that is impacted by Stroke Mortality, Horner points out, â€Å"Of note, data for the 1990’s indicate that stroke mortality has decreased in all racial ethnic groups except for American Indians/ Alaskan Natives†(Horner 1). In detail this article attempts to figure out what factors are causing these elevations in stroke mortality that is not seen in any other ethnic group. Methods/Results/Conclusion The doctors had to first gather the death certificate data of the Alas kan Natives, Horner states, We conducted an analysis of death certificate data for the state of Alaska for the period 1984 to 2003, comparing age standardized stroke mortality rates among Alaska Natives residing in Alaska vs. US whites by age category, genders, stroke type, and time† (Horner 1). This will allow the doctors to examine the data to really conclude that Alaskan Natives were more prone to strokes than whites. With this data the doctors also need a population of Alaskans that they could carefully examine and study, Horner explains, â€Å"the study population was defined as all Alaskan residents who self-identified as Alaskan Native People.

A Nuclear Iran

Can We Live with a Nuclear Iran? | â€Å"Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions†- Rudyard Griffiths| Rosalie Abdo, #6719633, POL1102D-Politics and Globalization, Dr. D Pierre-Antoine| Iran, a relatively large third world regime bordering multiple Middle Eastern countries, has for many years been accused of secretly building nuclear weapons. This is a country with extreme radical ideologies that publicly condemns the west and sends weekly threats of annihilation to Israel.Countries around the world are slowly showing their anxiety of such a nation potentially possessing capabilities of immense means of destruction when their ideologies and past actions suggest such aggressive behaviours. Yet there is no proof to say that Iran does in fact own any nuclear weapons, and they have repeatedly expressed that their nuclear facilities are purely for peaceful and technological purposes. First in this paper I will summarize the argument against the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Second, I will do the opposite and summarize the reasoning for the possibility of a nuclear Iran.Finally, I will conclude with the argument that the world can exist with a nuclear Iran. A variety of arguments against Iran owning nuclear weaponry has been voiced. One of the leading arguments is the fear of nuclear hyper-proliferation. Iran is a relatively powerful nation whose footstep is felt and is very engaged in international affairs concerning its part of the globe. The fear of hyper-proliferation is that once Iran officially has proprietorship of nuclear war devices the surrounding countries and nations of the Middle East will commence an arms race.This would be terrible for a multitude of reasons, the first being that certain countries in the region have shown to be extremely unstable. With radical revolutions still fresh in the blood of its populace Egypt and Syria are perfect examples of countries that do not possess a stable form of government. Nuclear weapons in such states pose an extre me risk because of the lack of regulation; those arms of mass destruction could easily fall in the wrong hands. The second is living in a world filled with nukes is not ideal.The NPT Treaty, signed by all of the world’s nations except a select few, was created in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt at increasing the disarmament of the already existing ones. As this treaty was signed by relatively all countries it must logically follow that they believe in its ideals of slowing down potential nuclear warfare. Another argument is that Iran has shown over and over again its aggressive tendencies as well as its support of violent resolutions. Iran regularly threatens Israel with extinction.Iran has sent major weapons to terrorist organizations such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon and radical rebels in the Gaza Strip to use on Israel. Iran also sent weapons to the Syrian President Al Assad’s regime making it considerably harder for the Syrian popul ation to overthrow their tyrannical oppressor of many decades. Lastly, a nuclear Iran could create a hegemonic Iranian power in the Middle East. With its extremely strategic oil deposit position, this would be very bad for the western world considering Iran’s extreme anti-western policies.There are numerous arguments as to why the world can live with a nuclear Iran. One of the leading arguments for it is deterrence. North Korea, a radical regime who threatens to set ablaze the capital of its neighboring country on a weekly basis, possesses quantities of nuclear armaments. Instead of instigating combat the major powers aimed to deter and contain it; so far this has been extremely successful. Even though this terrifying regime holds in their possession a multitude of nukes, Asia is able prosper and has lived in peace for many years.During the Cold War the USSR was considered an extremely radical regime, one that due to the arms race had ownership of massive amounts of nuclear w eaponry. Again, instead of creating mass conflict, the US aimed to deter and contain it and was very successful. Another leading argument is that not only would a physical conflict with Iran be excessively costly in multiple aspects, but an attack from outsiders could spur a movement of nationalism and rally the populace of Iran together.Considering the size and capability of the country, the ample population, the probable lengthiness of the affair, and the territorial aspect such as the mountain ranges and distances from ports, this would not be a low-cost event. Many American politicians as well as President Obama himself have stated identical answers; it would be devastating to the American economy. This would not only be a disaster financially, but with the local terrain American deaths would more then be guaranteed. This would also undoubtedly infuriate the citizens into a movement maybe more radical than the ones they currently are in.Even if this event would come to be succes sful for the west, what would happen after? This would not encourage western values or affiliation and could injure the reputation of America in the Arab world. With Iran’s current budget for its nuclear program being 300 million dollars, which is nothing compared to its oil revenue, it will only take a few years for the country to reconstruct their nuclear facilities and recommence as before. Although both sides of this debate demonstrate considerable deliberation and thought one has come out victorious. The western world can live with a nuclear Iran.This is not to say that it is a decent notion for Iran to construct nuclear weapons. It is not decent for any country to create nuclear weapons as the horrendous destruction caused by these torturous weapons cannot properly be put on a crime scale. The damage inflicted not only obliterates any living organism in the vicinity of the blasts but remains and either slowly poisons to death anything and everything it comes across or m utates it for years to come whether living or not. Iran’s methods of dealing with international relations are abhorrent and should not be condoned.Yet as menacing as Iran appears to be on the global level the repercussions of acting on it and doing anything more than deterrence and containment toward this country is too much of a risk. One of the reasons why the west can live with a nuclear Iran is that although not on friendly terms, Iran has never directly threatened the west. They do have multiple anti-western policies yet they have never threatened their wellbeing. Iran has been very threatening and aggressive towards certain other nations such as Israel, yet Israel is a state that has been established for over sixty years and possesses over 200 nuclear weapons.This is not suggesting a termination of the alliance between the United States and Israel, but more of a slow and progressive estrangement in its aid. As previously mentioned before, a physical conflict with Iran c ould be devastating on the American economy. Some have argued that a pre-emptive war would not be a necessity for other countries to prevent a nuclear Iran and that by simply initiating tougher sanctions and doing everything that is short of war would be sufficient in thwarting Iran from building nuclear weaponry.There are many problems with this statement the first being that this action has already been done. The sanctions on building nuclear warheads are incredibly strong. The second problem with this is that to have a rule of law that is respected there needs to be an element of enforcement. There can be tougher sanctions put on the regulation of nuclear weapons, but if there is no one to enforce these rules then they are absolutely futile. If this train of thought is logically followed through it becomes apparent that enforcement is necessary in certain cases, war being the necessary implementation.Hence war is a necessity in some cases. This applies to Iran, and the west does not have a budget to follow it through. Another reason why the west could live with a nuclear Iran is that there currently is a country in the Middle East whose possession of nuclear weapons did not initiate an arms race, this country being Israel. Countries like Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar all have substantial oil infused treasuries, budgets that could easily commence a nuclear agenda without a second thought.They are residing in the Middle East and did not feel the compulsion or the requirement to initiate an arms race; why would countries fill the need to do so with Iran? There is no evidence that any hyper-proliferation would ever occur. When North Korea declared it was growing a nuclear arsenal the surrounding nations did not attempt to create their own. This is also true with China, when it announced its ownership of nuclear weapons neighboring countries did not react in any sort of arms race.Israel is an extremely controversial country in the morals of the Middle Eastern population. It is more controversial then even Iran’s Shite regime. Many countries do not appreciate its existence, whether they publicly claim so or not. This is not to say that there are countries conspiring in its destruction, but to say that it would have been an easy justification to start constructing nuclear facilities due to the fact that the country is slowly but steadily engulfing all of Palestine.Lastly, the western world can live with a nuclear Iran because as previously stated deterrence has been successful. There are only a select few countries that have ownership of nuclear weaponry. Unfortunately, some of these countries are a part of dangerous regimes such as North Korea or unstable governments like Pakistan, yet due to proper deterrence and containment there not only has not been a nuclear war but there is no reason to believe there will be one in the future.Proper deterrence has also been successful in preventing other countries to attempt creating many more nuclear facilities and arsenals. This is what the west should be focusing on, not imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons that do not exist. If Iran declares its ownership of multiple nuclear weapons and its intention to use them, the western world has a right and an obligation to try to prevent this awful scenario for happening. Yet until this day comes, Iran has a right to build nuclear weapons. A Nuclear Iran Can We Live with a Nuclear Iran? | â€Å"Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions†- Rudyard Griffiths| Rosalie Abdo, #6719633, POL1102D-Politics and Globalization, Dr. D Pierre-Antoine| Iran, a relatively large third world regime bordering multiple Middle Eastern countries, has for many years been accused of secretly building nuclear weapons. This is a country with extreme radical ideologies that publicly condemns the west and sends weekly threats of annihilation to Israel.Countries around the world are slowly showing their anxiety of such a nation potentially possessing capabilities of immense means of destruction when their ideologies and past actions suggest such aggressive behaviours. Yet there is no proof to say that Iran does in fact own any nuclear weapons, and they have repeatedly expressed that their nuclear facilities are purely for peaceful and technological purposes. First in this paper I will summarize the argument against the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Second, I will do the opposite and summarize the reasoning for the possibility of a nuclear Iran.Finally, I will conclude with the argument that the world can exist with a nuclear Iran. A variety of arguments against Iran owning nuclear weaponry has been voiced. One of the leading arguments is the fear of nuclear hyper-proliferation. Iran is a relatively powerful nation whose footstep is felt and is very engaged in international affairs concerning its part of the globe. The fear of hyper-proliferation is that once Iran officially has proprietorship of nuclear war devices the surrounding countries and nations of the Middle East will commence an arms race.This would be terrible for a multitude of reasons, the first being that certain countries in the region have shown to be extremely unstable. With radical revolutions still fresh in the blood of its populace Egypt and Syria are perfect examples of countries that do not possess a stable form of government. Nuclear weapons in such states pose an extre me risk because of the lack of regulation; those arms of mass destruction could easily fall in the wrong hands. The second is living in a world filled with nukes is not ideal.The NPT Treaty, signed by all of the world’s nations except a select few, was created in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt at increasing the disarmament of the already existing ones. As this treaty was signed by relatively all countries it must logically follow that they believe in its ideals of slowing down potential nuclear warfare. Another argument is that Iran has shown over and over again its aggressive tendencies as well as its support of violent resolutions. Iran regularly threatens Israel with extinction.Iran has sent major weapons to terrorist organizations such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon and radical rebels in the Gaza Strip to use on Israel. Iran also sent weapons to the Syrian President Al Assad’s regime making it considerably harder for the Syrian popul ation to overthrow their tyrannical oppressor of many decades. Lastly, a nuclear Iran could create a hegemonic Iranian power in the Middle East. With its extremely strategic oil deposit position, this would be very bad for the western world considering Iran’s extreme anti-western policies.There are numerous arguments as to why the world can live with a nuclear Iran. One of the leading arguments for it is deterrence. North Korea, a radical regime who threatens to set ablaze the capital of its neighboring country on a weekly basis, possesses quantities of nuclear armaments. Instead of instigating combat the major powers aimed to deter and contain it; so far this has been extremely successful. Even though this terrifying regime holds in their possession a multitude of nukes, Asia is able prosper and has lived in peace for many years.During the Cold War the USSR was considered an extremely radical regime, one that due to the arms race had ownership of massive amounts of nuclear w eaponry. Again, instead of creating mass conflict, the US aimed to deter and contain it and was very successful. Another leading argument is that not only would a physical conflict with Iran be excessively costly in multiple aspects, but an attack from outsiders could spur a movement of nationalism and rally the populace of Iran together.Considering the size and capability of the country, the ample population, the probable lengthiness of the affair, and the territorial aspect such as the mountain ranges and distances from ports, this would not be a low-cost event. Many American politicians as well as President Obama himself have stated identical answers; it would be devastating to the American economy. This would not only be a disaster financially, but with the local terrain American deaths would more then be guaranteed. This would also undoubtedly infuriate the citizens into a movement maybe more radical than the ones they currently are in.Even if this event would come to be succes sful for the west, what would happen after? This would not encourage western values or affiliation and could injure the reputation of America in the Arab world. With Iran’s current budget for its nuclear program being 300 million dollars, which is nothing compared to its oil revenue, it will only take a few years for the country to reconstruct their nuclear facilities and recommence as before. Although both sides of this debate demonstrate considerable deliberation and thought one has come out victorious. The western world can live with a nuclear Iran.This is not to say that it is a decent notion for Iran to construct nuclear weapons. It is not decent for any country to create nuclear weapons as the horrendous destruction caused by these torturous weapons cannot properly be put on a crime scale. The damage inflicted not only obliterates any living organism in the vicinity of the blasts but remains and either slowly poisons to death anything and everything it comes across or m utates it for years to come whether living or not. Iran’s methods of dealing with international relations are abhorrent and should not be condoned.Yet as menacing as Iran appears to be on the global level the repercussions of acting on it and doing anything more than deterrence and containment toward this country is too much of a risk. One of the reasons why the west can live with a nuclear Iran is that although not on friendly terms, Iran has never directly threatened the west. They do have multiple anti-western policies yet they have never threatened their wellbeing. Iran has been very threatening and aggressive towards certain other nations such as Israel, yet Israel is a state that has been established for over sixty years and possesses over 200 nuclear weapons.This is not suggesting a termination of the alliance between the United States and Israel, but more of a slow and progressive estrangement in its aid. As previously mentioned before, a physical conflict with Iran c ould be devastating on the American economy. Some have argued that a pre-emptive war would not be a necessity for other countries to prevent a nuclear Iran and that by simply initiating tougher sanctions and doing everything that is short of war would be sufficient in thwarting Iran from building nuclear weaponry.There are many problems with this statement the first being that this action has already been done. The sanctions on building nuclear warheads are incredibly strong. The second problem with this is that to have a rule of law that is respected there needs to be an element of enforcement. There can be tougher sanctions put on the regulation of nuclear weapons, but if there is no one to enforce these rules then they are absolutely futile. If this train of thought is logically followed through it becomes apparent that enforcement is necessary in certain cases, war being the necessary implementation.Hence war is a necessity in some cases. This applies to Iran, and the west does not have a budget to follow it through. Another reason why the west could live with a nuclear Iran is that there currently is a country in the Middle East whose possession of nuclear weapons did not initiate an arms race, this country being Israel. Countries like Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar all have substantial oil infused treasuries, budgets that could easily commence a nuclear agenda without a second thought.They are residing in the Middle East and did not feel the compulsion or the requirement to initiate an arms race; why would countries fill the need to do so with Iran? There is no evidence that any hyper-proliferation would ever occur. When North Korea declared it was growing a nuclear arsenal the surrounding nations did not attempt to create their own. This is also true with China, when it announced its ownership of nuclear weapons neighboring countries did not react in any sort of arms race.Israel is an extremely controversial country in the morals of the Middle Eastern population. It is more controversial then even Iran’s Shite regime. Many countries do not appreciate its existence, whether they publicly claim so or not. This is not to say that there are countries conspiring in its destruction, but to say that it would have been an easy justification to start constructing nuclear facilities due to the fact that the country is slowly but steadily engulfing all of Palestine.Lastly, the western world can live with a nuclear Iran because as previously stated deterrence has been successful. There are only a select few countries that have ownership of nuclear weaponry. Unfortunately, some of these countries are a part of dangerous regimes such as North Korea or unstable governments like Pakistan, yet due to proper deterrence and containment there not only has not been a nuclear war but there is no reason to believe there will be one in the future.Proper deterrence has also been successful in preventing other countries to attempt creating many more nuclear facilities and arsenals. This is what the west should be focusing on, not imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons that do not exist. If Iran declares its ownership of multiple nuclear weapons and its intention to use them, the western world has a right and an obligation to try to prevent this awful scenario for happening. Yet until this day comes, Iran has a right to build nuclear weapons.

Following a structured approach Essay

How might following a structured approach to creating sound and strong arguments impact your life? Coercing others to agree with your argument requires sound premises. In life, you come across opportunities to apply this skill. These opportunities may be a promotion at work, a kitchen design your spouse does not agree with, or a plea for mercy from a police officer after you are caught speeding and running a red light in order to get home to meet your children at the bus. How have you begun to use logic as a tool for improving your everyday life? This class was perfect timing for my end of year review at work. We are asked to create a self-review that our supervisors can use to evaluate our performance. A portion of the self-review requires fact based scores attained throughout the year; the remainder is how you performed tasks. In the past, my reviews summed up to a plea for promotion and more money. I was able to apply critical thinking and create premises that are fact based. Above average scores received throughout the year shows my ability to perform my job with excellence. Experience with systems provided an opportunity to train and coach other instructional designers. A company approved pay scale calculated with performance (based on scores) and experience provides evidence for a pay raise. What are your future goals for changing your critical thinking and reasoning skills as a result of what you have learned in this course? I tend to jump into an argument with little to no thought. In this class, I have learned to take time to analyze the information and the opposing argument in order to make my argument deductive, sound, and strong. Jumping the gun leads to false premises with unsupported conclusions. Critical thinking removes clouded premises, attached by emotion that inevitably ends in a weak argu ment.

Too Connected to Social Media Essay Example

Too Connected to Social Media Essay Example Too Connected to Social Media Essay Too Connected to Social Media Essay Essay Topic: Social Media Are we too connected? Last Monday was just an average Monday. My friend sent out a tweet about her new art show and so I wall posted her via facebook about the time and location in which she replied via a comment saying that she would give me a call. She followed up with a voicemail message and an invitation email, sent to my personal account of course. I then texted her telling of my availability and keenness to see her recent work. At the end of my Monday something occurred to me; actually it was more like I was slapped in the face by the hand of modern technology. I had seemingly been communicating all day and yet somehow connected with nobody. I myself am an avid enthusiast of the joys of modern technology so you can see why I did not absorb this epiphany with composure. Speaking as an 18-year-old girl whose middle school years were marked by the likes of MySpace I feel as if I am very well educated on the topic of digital communication. I have experienced first hand the infectious, consuming nature of social media sites. The internet allows me to instantly connect with my overseas relatives and at the same time sucks me into a vortex of procrastination. It would appear that somewhere between windows 98 and the ipad3 we as a society have manipulated ourselves into a constant state of flux; endlessly devoted to the idea that we must always be connected. Digital Libraian and fournder of the Internet Archive Brewster Kahle explains, â€Å"A lot of our brain, a lot of our worth to the world, a lot of our memories, are actually not in our heads anymore. Theyre actually in the Web, in the weave, in the interconnections, the friends that we can touch at a moments notice. Thats who makes us powerful. â€Å" It would appear that for most of us technology is no longer just a tool. It is a family photo album, it’s our workspace, it’s dinner with friends at six. Teenagers change their profile page to reflect their ever-changing adolescent identities. Mothers are swapping recipes and parenting advice online. Singles are reaching out, exposing who they are in search for love. Businessmen are uploading their resumes virtually in order to climb the corporate ladder. Technology has become inherent to the way in which we function daily. As this urgency to contact one another grows so to does the need to disconnect. Things are not as intimate as they once were. It would seem that we’re almost always in a public space even from the privacy of our homes. This idea that we are always connected is in reality a false problem. You can turn the switch off, unplug, shutdown and so on. When is the last time you went without a piece of technology? Why we do rely on technology like an emotional crutch, supporting our need to interact? Technology will continue to rapidly grow and so too will knew and wonderful ways to connect globally. With this we must train ourselves. It is a hard truth, but we do not need to know what everybody is doing at every point of the day. It is a matter of quality vs. quantity. Sometimes you have to step away from the faceless monitor, let your IPhone run flat, stop sharing life so candidly and instead enjoy the simplicities

The Southern Cult - Southeastern Ceremonial Complex

The Southern Cult - Southeastern Ceremonial Complex The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) is what archaeologists have called a broad regional similarity of artifacts, iconography, ceremonies, and mythology of the Mississippian period in North America between about 1000 and 1600 CE. This cultural melange is thought to represent a Mississippian religion evolved at Cahokia on the Mississippi River near modern day St. Louis and spread via migration and diffusion of ideas throughout southeastern North America, impacting existing communities as far-flung as the modern states of Oklahoma, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Louisiana. Key Takeaways: Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Common Names: Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, Southern CultAlternatives: Mississippian Ideological Interaction Sphere (MIIS) or the Mississippian Art and Ceremonial Complex (MACC)Dates: 1000–1600 CELocation: throughout the southeastern U.S.  Interpretation: Major towns with mounds and rectangular plazas spread from Oklahoma to Florida, Minnesota to Louisiana, connected by broad-based religious activities and trade in copper, shell, and potteryShared Symbols: Morning Star/Red Horn, Underwater Panther Mound Cities The SECC was first recognized in the mid-twentieth century, although it was then called the Southern Cult; today it is sometimes referred to as the Mississippian Ideological Interaction Sphere (MIIS) or the Mississippian Art and Ceremonial Complex (MACC). The multiplicity of names for this phenomenon reflects both the significance of the similarities placed on it by the scholars, and the struggles those scholars have had trying to pin down the processes and meanings of an undeniable wave of cultural change. Etowah Mound B, Georgia, Mississippian Civilization. Kare Thor Olsen Commonality of Traits The core components of the SECC are repoussà © copper sheet plates (basically, three-dimensional objects cold-hammered out of copper), engraved marine shell gorgets, and shell cups. These objects are decorated in what scholars call the Classic Braden figural style, as it was defined by archaeologist James A. Brown in the 1990s. The Classic Braden style focuses on the winged anthropomorphic being known colloquially among archaeologists as the birdman, depicted on copper plates and worn as headpieces or breastplates. The birdman symbol is nearly a universal component at SECC sites. Other traits are found less consistently. Mississippians typically, but not always, lived in major towns centered around four-sided plazas. The centers of those towns sometimes included large raised earthen platforms topped by pole and thatch temples and elite houses, some of which were cemeteries for elites. Some of the societies played a game with disc-like pieces called chunkey stones. Artifacts of shell, copper, and pottery were distributed and exchanged and copied. Common symbols on those artifacts include the hand-eye (a hand with an eye in the palm), a falconid or forked eye symbol, a bi-lobed arrow, the quincunx or cross-in-circle motif, and a petal-like motif. The Peach Tree State Archaeological Society website has a detailed discussion of some of these motifs. Shared Supernatural Beings The anthropomorphic birdman motif has been the focus of much scholarly research. The birdman has been connected to the mythical hero-god known as Morning Star or Red Horn in upper midwest Native American communities. Found on repoussà © copper and shell etchings, versions of the birdman seem to represent anthropomorphized bird deities or costumed dancers associated with warfare rituals. They wear bi-lobed headdresses, have long noses and often long braids- those traits are associated with masculine sexual virility among Osage and Winnebago rituals and oral traditions. But some of them appear to be female, bi-gendered or genderless: some scholars note wryly that our Western concepts of the duality of male and female are hindering our ability to comprehend the meaning of this figure. Version of the Underwater Panther on a Mississippian Bowl from Moundville. CB Moore, 1907 In some communities, there is a shared supernatural being called the underwater panther or underwater spirit; the Native American descendants of the Mississippians call this being Piasa or Uktena. The panther, Siouan descendants tell us, represents three worlds: wings for the upper world, antlers for the middle and scales for the lower. He is one of the husbands of the Old Woman Who Never Dies. These myths strongly echo the pan-Mesoamerican underwater serpent deity, one of which is the Maya god ​Itzamna. This is remnants of an old religion. Reports by the Conquistadors The timing of the SECC, which ended at (and maybe because) the period of initial Euroamerican colonization of North America, gives scholars a vision albeit corrupted of the effective practices of the SECC. The ​16th century Spanish and the 17th century French visited these communities and wrote of what they saw. Further, echoes of the SECC are part and parcel of a living tradition among many of the descendant communities. A fascinating paper by Lee J. Bloch discusses his attempt to describe the birdman motif to Native American people who live in the vicinity of the SECC site of Lake Jackson, Florida. That discussion led him to recognize how some of the entrenched archaeological concepts are just wrong. The birdman is not a bird, the Muskogee told him, its a moth. One clearly evident aspect of the SECC today is that, although the archaeological concept of a Southern Cult was conceived as a homogenous religious practice, it was not homogenous and probably not necessarily (or entirely) religious. Scholars are still struggling with that: some have said it was an iconography that was restricted to the elites, to help cement their leadership roles in the far-flung communities. Others have noted that the similarities seem to fall into three categories: warriors and weaponry; falcon dancer paraphernalia; and a mortuary cult. Too Much Information? The irony is, of course, that more information is available about the SECC than most other massive cultural changes recognized in the past, making it harder to pin down a reasonable interpretation. Although scholars are still working out the possible meanings and process of the Southeastern Cultural Complex, it is eminently clear that it was a geographically, chronologically, and functionally variable ideological phenomenon. As an interested bystander, I find the ongoing SECC research a fascinating combination of what you do when you have too much and not enough information, which promises to continue to evolve for some decades to come. Mississippian Chiefdoms in the SECC A few of the largest and better known Mississippian mound cities include: Cahokia (Illinois), Etowah (Georgia), Moundville (Alabama), Spiro Mound (Oklahoma), Silvernale (Minnesota), Lake Jackson (Florida), Castalian Springs (Tennessee), Carter Robinson (Virginia) Selected Sources Blitz, John. New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18.1 (2010): 1–39. Print.Bloch, Lee J. The Unthinkable and the Unseen: Community Archaeology and Decolonizing Social Imagination at Okeeheepkee, or the Lake Jackson Site. Archaeologies 10.1 (2014): 70–106. Print.Cobb, Charles R., and Adam King. Re-Inventing Mississippian Tradition at Etowah, Georgia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12.3 (2005): 167–92. Print.Emerson, Thomas E., et al. Paradigms Lost: Reconfiguring Cahokia’s Mound 72 Beaded Burial. American Antiquity 81.3 (2016): 405–25. Print.Hall, Robert L. The Cultural Background of Mississippian Symbolism. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis. Ed. Galloway, P. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989. 239–78. Print.Knight, Vernon James Jr. Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25.1 (2006): 1–5. Print.Krus, Anthony M. , and Charles R. Cobb. The Mississippian Fin De Sià ¨cle in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. American Antiquity 83.2 (2018): 302–19. Print. Meyers, Maureen. Excavating a Mississippian Frontier: Fieldwork at the Carter Robinson Mound Site. Native South 1 (2008): 27–44. Print.Muller, Jon. The Southern Cult. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis. Ed. Galloway, P. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989. 11–26. Print.

Martha Rogers Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Martha Rogers - Research Paper Example Delegation becomes necessary to obtain protected outcomes which become possible if the registered nurses can delegate their roles to unlicensed assistant personnel who are capable of providing healthcare directly to the patients. In the process, the registered nurses can retain their accountability as well. However, although the needs and benefits of delegation are studied and known to certain extents, their implementation in actual healthcare is still found to be limited (Anthony and Vidal, 2010). Delegation of responsibility can be achieved safely if the tasks are performed with proper planning and dedication. If the delegation proves to be a failure, then the registered nurses get accountable for any negative outcome on the patient. Thus communication and providing the right direction is highly essential while delegating responsibilities in nursing. Moreover such information needs to be updated followed by continuous evaluation in order to reduce the complexities in the nursing wo rk environments. Another significant factor is the relationship between the registered nurses and the personnel to whom the tasks are delegated. Harmonization, teamwork and mutual aid are extremely essential in order to provide safe delivery of healthcare to the patients (Anthony and Vidal, 2010). ... However the registered nurse has to constantly supervise the tasks even after delegation to achieve improved patient outcomes, as she remains responsible for such outcomes and patient satisfaction. The process and skills of delegation not being easy are in need for proper training and facilities in order to be successful on patient safety (Ruff, 2011). Martha E. Rogers, who was an American nurse, had served her life on nursing, and wrote many papers where she focused on improving the work of nursing in better work environments to improve lives of patients. She, through her writings and journals, presented a nurse as a unitary human being. Resonancy, helicy and integrality are the three concepts that she focused on explain the relation and communication of human beings with their environments. Thus the working environment was considered as highly important for nursing, by Rogers. Her theory was named as the Science of Unitary Human Beings (SUHB) that was primarily developed to motivat e the existing theories of nursing (Meleis, 2011). Nursing was thus given particular attention by Martha Rogers in regard to the role that nurses have to play in the healthcare environment and the responsibilities that they have to focus on for patient safety and satisfaction. This is important in developing the right path for nursing delegation as well in healthcare. Conclusion: It can be concluded from the above study that the concept of nursing delegation has been in existence since a long time. However the need and importance of delegation has been realized more in the present day healthcare with the healthcare systems and working environments for nurses becoming more and more complex. The nurses having a large number of responsibilities together in