Religious and Traditional Symbols in the Lottery by Shirley Jackson Ess

Religious and Traditional Symbols in the Lottery Religious groups encourage and enforce conformity of their social norms and beliefs upon their members. Religious traditions are usually passed on from parent to child at an early age. In â€Å"The Lottery,† Shirley Jackson reveals the tradition of the lottery and how all of the villagers conform to the ritual of a human sacrifice. Growing up with an exceptionally religious father I can relate to way of thinking of the villagers that traditions are accepted without questioning. In â€Å"The lottery,† the children were stuffing their pockets with stones before all of the parents had arrived, â€Å" Bobby Martin had already stuffed his pockets full of stones, and the other boys soon followed his example, selecting the smoothest and roundest stones† ( 529). This illustrates that the children were taught what to do in the event of the lottery and by being prepared it shows that they were keen to please their parents. My father had always pressured me to follow his religious beliefs and traditions. At first I was eager to attend his church sermons and Sunday school because it made me fell like I was pleasing my father and he would reward me with praise and ice creams on the drive home. But as I got older I started to realize that certain rules and regulations of the church were unnecessary and some were even ludicrous. For example, at the age of twelve my father had announced that we would discard our television because the church th...

Rogerian Argument Drilling in ANWR

However, drilling in this land also brings the possibility of destroying the habitat of birds that migrate to this area yearly, caribou that use this haven as a calving ground, fish that fill the rivers and lakes, as well as grizzly bears, wolves, elk and hundreds of other species that depend on this habitat for food, shelter and safety. There is no debate that there are passionate debates, important facts and amazing possibilities that concern both sides of this argument. And even If it were possible to remove political agenda from the table, It would still be a very difficult debate to win for either side.My hopes are to come to a conclusion that would benefit both parties Involved. I strongly feel that any drilling In this area would be detrimental to the surrounding area, as well as bring possible harm to the countless animals, birds and fish that use this safe haven yearly for migration, calving and egg laying and feeding. The decision to either drill or not to drill may not hav e a direct impact on us now, but in the years to come, good or bad, we will all see the changes that this decision will have resulted in.There are many others, like you, that believe that drilling in INWARD is the perfect elution to our current economic situation. The possibilities of new Jobs and freedom from purchasing oil from unstable and hostile countries Is tempting and seems like a wonderful alternative to our current circumstances. Eve read reports that state that we could create up to 736,000 new Jobs. The assessment of these numbers was broken down Into Jobs such as manufacturing, milling, trade, services and construction.In addition the plethora of new employment opportunities there are reports that show that drilling in INWARD could produce up to 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day. These same reports claim that producing such a large amount of oil each day would replace the oil that we purchase from Saudi Arabia, which in turn would put about $50,000,000 back into the united States Economy. There are many believable reports that technology has far advanced itself in relation to the process of drilling oil and that the new equipment and processes for obtaining the oil from underground would be incredibly safe and urn-invasive to the surrounding area.In addition, I understand that the size of the area that is being considered for drilling Is about the size of the state of South Carolina and that the land Is barren, windswept and that this particular area Is desolate of any wildlife or vegetation. The Alaskan National seems like a good idea. In fact, I think it's quite tempting to dream of one day not to reduce the U. S. Federal deficit and at the same time boosting the local economy and putting American's back to work. I can see the benefits to drilling in this land if the results would be as extensive as they appear to be in these reports.Of course for every report that lists the benefits of drilling, there is another that refutes it. In doing my resear ch I actually switched positions from being pro-drilling to anti- drilling. I realized that although the process of drilling in recent years has become a much safer method for both the driller and the surrounding area, there were still too many possibilities of problems for the wildlife and vegetation that call the area home. Take for example the event that occurred in 1989.The Interior Department's stamp of approval for drilling in this oil rich land became a catalyst for a movement among the Senate drill. On March 24, 1989, Just days after the report from the Interior Department, the Exxon Valued spill occurred dumping 11 million gallons of crude oil over thousands of miles of California coastline. According to the National Wildlife Federation, a very reputable source, marine life still hasn't completely recovered from this monstrous oil spill. At the time of the spill it was discovered that thousands of birds had died of hypothermia due to the coat of oil covering their feathers. Sea turtles were stranded in oily waters, including the endangered Kemps riddle sea turtles. Whales and fish were killed and the ones that survived had ingested the oil which is known to cause ulcers and even internal bleeding. Research shows that the effects of the oil can even affect the offspring of these marine animals. Dolphins were studied for years and had shown to be very ill. In addition the marine animals, the coral and reefs were also affected by the oil. Many of these amazing formations were shown to be dying or dead.The loss of these underwater habitats caused many surviving marine animals to be homeless which leaves them open to predators. Another oil spill like this could be catastrophic to these marine animals as well as our gashing industries as well as our tourism. It would be awful to create thousands of jobs in order to drill oil and then cost thousands of others their Jobs because of an oil spill. I understand that this is Just a possibility, but I feel it is de finitely some to be considered when discussing the safety of drilling in INWARD.No one can promise that this won't happen again. I do realize that there are new ways to prevent a spill and to clean up a spill once it has happened. For example we now know oaf bacteria that have been found to eat the oil which is very promising, however, cleaning up an oil pill in Alaska can provide its own special challenges with the freezing weather and ice. Another important fact to consider when deciding to support drilling in INWARD is whether or not the benefits of drilling in this reserve would out way the cost.I wondered if there would be enough oil produced to actually realize the hope of becoming free from our dependence on the unstable oil producing countries that we rely on so heavily for fuel. There are many reputable sources including an article on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge US Fish and Wildlife Services website that claim hat we would not see any oil production for about 10 yea rs after drilling begins. There is no doubt that the land in this region of Alaska is filled with an abundance of oil. We've known about the existence of oil in this land for years.Exactly how much of an abundance, however, still remains to be seen. It is anyone's guess as to how much oil currently lies beneath the land. This is very contradictory to pro-drilling supporters of drilling in INWARD report that the oil companies are using a much safer method of drilling the oil at this time, there is not much information regarding the new technique that is being referred to. It is however hinted to be related to the underground oil pipes that have been built. It evens seems like the Alaskan residents are split on this issue. On one hand it would create Jobs and give a boost to the economy.On the other hand however there is the possibility of their main source of food, the fish and seals, may actually move father away in order to escape the pollutants and toxins in the air. Either way yo u look at the situation, there are pros and cons to drilling for oil in INWARD. The beautiful countryside is blossoming with hundreds upon hundreds of mammals such as the black grizzly, the caribou and he elk, migrating birds such as ducks, geese and quail and sea creatures galore versus the possibility of a robust economy, American Jobs and less dependency on other countries.They are both very important issues to consider and should not be taken lightly. This world is a precious gift that we leave for our children and it is our job to make sure that we protect the culture of Alaska, with respect to the innovations and possibilities of providing for our countries future as well. It may be time to turn our attention to a new source of energy. As technology advances, so does our awareness of the possibilities that await us. Maybe it is time to look ahead to advancements that could completely terminate our dependency on hostile, foreign countries for our fuel demands.I think that it wo uld be a great compromise to spend our time, resources and technology to develop a fuel source that we know we could depend on. The earth's oil sources will eventually run dry. There will come a point when we will have to look elsewhere to fuel our cars and to heat our homes. It's my opinion that we should begin looking for that next energy source now. There are many renewable resources such as wind, sun, water as well as one that is very citing. Celluloses ethanol is a source that has been used for a few years now.This is a renewable energy source that is derived from fermented corn. This particular type of energy can be used to fuel cars and eventually homes as well. There is still research to do and it would take a lot of changes to make this a reality such as remodeling our vehicles so that they would run off of this type of fuel. This is not something that could happen overnight, but it is something that could be accomplished within 10 years, which subsequently is the amount of time it would aka for the United States to even begin reaping the benefits of drilling in INWARD.

Animal Testing. Brandon Sandlin. Psychology 1010. Professor

Animal Testing Brandon Sandlin Psychology 1010 Professor Caplandies March 24th, 2017 Animal testing has risen as an extremely controversial topic among scientists and animal rights activists. Many see it as a necessary part of finding cures for thousands of diseases. On the other hand, animal rights activists believe it is an inhumane, harsh, and unnecessary flaw in science. The argument can go back and forth but I believe animal testing should not be used in today’s technically advanced era. The laws are flawed, the failures are evident, and the available alternatives prove that animal testing should be indefinitely banned for future science experiments. Animal Testing is nothing new, it has been going on for hundreds of years†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"Its enforcement is delegated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, whose inspectors make unannounced site visits to research facilities† (Latham). This brings up the first loophole in the act because these â€Å"unannounced site visits† are not as common as they should be. One pet shop may only be visited once a year which is clearly not enough to deem the establishment law abiding. Secondly, the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 doesn’t protect all animals, but rather a small group of animals. Latham states, â€Å"it contains special regulations addressed to certain animal favorites: dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys†¦But in fact the law has never reached the bulk of warm-blooded animals actually used in research†. This seems contradictive to me. Why would you protect only a handful of animals but not the ones most prominently used in testing such as chimpanzees, rats, and guinea pigs? I believe the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 needs to be amended once again to improve its blanket of coverage and increase site visits. Going hand in hand with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the Three R’s are also intended to protect animal’s welfare. The Three R’s is a tenet that represents the ethical principles to guide researchers – Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. The purpose of The Three R’s is explained by Fenwick, Griffin, Gauthier when they said, â€Å"The tenet is grounded in the premise that animals should be used only if a