The novels a demonstration Essay Example For Students

The novels a demonstration Essay The affair between Winston and Julia marks the stand that both of them are trying to take against Big Brother, however Julia is only really interested in the sexual aspect of their relationship, the downfall of Big Brother playing second fiddle. The very description of Julia by Orwell leads the reader to perceive that she is the model Oceanic citizen, She was a bold looking girl, of about twenty-seven, with thick dark hair, a freckled face and swift, athletic movements. A narrow scarlet sash, emblem of the Junior Anti-Sex League, was wound several times around the waist of the overalls, just tightly enough to bring out the shapeliness of her hips. This initial interpretation of Julia establishes her to be someone who is following the rules and regulations of the Oceanic society; however this could not be more far removed from the truth. As the novel progresses it becomes apparent that Julia is not fighting to bring down Big Brother to actually bring his society down, but only for the sake of fighting, she is portrayed as a silly young woman whose only interests were to break the rules and stay alive all the same, as well as her sexual relationship with Winston, something which she ironically is meant to be opposing. We will write a custom essay on The novels a demonstration specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Although the only viewpoint we are given of Julia is through Winston it is clear through the progression of their relationship that her intentions are somewhat different from Winstons, She hated the party, and said so in the crudest words, but she made no general criticism of it. This is a source of great frustration for Winston who wants revolution and seems very intent that it will happen.  The similarity between Julia and Lenina is that both female characters are portrayed by Orwell and Huxley are extremely promiscuous and seemingly only interested on one thing. Both authors show that women and their sexuality cause them to behave in erratic and uncalculated ways which causes them to aid the downfall of their male companions. This on the part of the authors is an extremely misogynistic perspective; both Julia and Lenina are portrayed as beautiful young women who seem intent on bringing down the male characters through their obsessions with sex. For me personally the female sexuality is focused on in a negative sense, whereas the reader is more likely to feel some degree of sympathy towards such characters as Winston or John, towards Julia or Lenina there is very little direct sympathy perhaps more satisfaction that they get their just desserts, however it is still a good example that sexuality it a powerful tool. Orwell and Huxley both present the reader with two very contrasting worlds yet both authors agree in their perspective of sex and sexuality-that ultimately sexuality leads to the corruption and demise of life. In Brave New World John the Savage is introduced into a world of complete sexual freedom, where lust reigns free, this is very alien to him and as much as he tries to fight his urges he is led by the promiscuous Lenina and is eventually swallowed up the World States conditioning, finding himself in the exact position he though intolerable. In 1984 Winston is led by his hunger to rebel against. Big Brother into the arms of the equally sexually promiscuous Julia and their affair eventually leads him to embrace Big Brother with love, something he believed he would never do. Both novels are a demonstration of the extreme power that sexuality holds over human beings, and that ultimately we as a race cannot withstand sex. This very view is summed up in the final actions of John the Savage who realises he is just as sexually driven as people such as Lenina, he has given into the very thing he was fighting against and feels that there is no other way out but to kill himself, Slowly, very slowly, like two unhurried compass needles, the feet turned towards the right; north, north-east, east, south-east, south, south-south west

The eNotes Blog For Students eNotes Intern Offers WritingTips

For Students Intern Offers WritingTips 5 Writing Habits to Ditch  Now Our fabulous and world-worn intern returns to share cautionary tales from the battlefield of her college experience. Okay, so really she just graduated from UCLA and is dead smart, but that just means you should pay attention to what she says even more. This time, she covers the five habits most detrimental to writing well. Follow her sound advice, or fear the wrath of the red marker Need more writing help? We have plenty of support in our Grammar and Writing topics waiting to answer your questions! 1. Using the â€Å"Synonym† function in Word as a crutch When you realize that you’re overusing a word, it gets really tempting to simply switch it out with another, helpfully recommended by Word itself. This can be a great tool to use, as it may help to point you in a new direction. However, blindly trusting Word’s thesaurus can also be treacherous. Often, the recommendations it gives are only similar to the word you desire. The difference between two so-called synonyms can be marked.  Take for instance a word I used earlier: â€Å"treacherous.† Treacherous, as defined by Dictionary.com, means â€Å"characterized by  faithlessness  or readiness to betray trust, traitorous,† but it also connotes â€Å"deceptive, untrustworthy, or unreliable† as well as â€Å"dangerous, hazardous.† This word was specifically chosen because it encompassed all of those definitions. However, Word suggests that it be substituted with â€Å"unfaithful,† â€Å"disloyal,† and â€Å"deceitful.† While it is true that all of those words are related to â€Å"treacherous,† none of them also add the element of danger that the original word does. By blindly swapping one word for another without taking the time to consider what it means, you may lose an important element of what you are trying to convey. This can have a drastic effect on your writing, and it also tells your audience that you don’t know what a word means. Rule of thumb: double-check any suggestions Word gives you, just to make sure that it’s an appropriate substitution. 2.  Passive voice I’ll admit it: I have problems myself with passive voice. Even as I wrote that last sentence, I had to stop myself from saying â€Å"passive voice is something I have problems with.† In a nutshell, passive voice occurs when you make the receiver of an action the subject of a sentence. Here’s an example: â€Å"The bread was baked by Harry,† versus â€Å"Harry baked the bread.† Arguments against passive voice say that it makes your writing indirect and impersonal, which is never desirable. That is not to say that passive voice is never appropriate – it can be used to place emphasis on the receiver over the agent of an action, as well as to deny responsibility of an action entirely (the good old governmental favorite: â€Å"Mistakes were made.†) But make sure that passive voice is a conscious stylistic choice, and not simply the result of a lack of attention to detail. 3. Wordiness This often goes hand-in-hand with passive voice. Wordiness makes your writing seem awkward and unfocused. Depending on the context, it can also imply that you are scrambling to meet the required word count. Keep in mind that when your teacher or professor assigns an essay, they (or their TAs) will end up reading anywhere from twenty to a hundred papers over a period of just a few days. Wordiness disrupts the flow of your paper, and makes it harder to read and understand. The more direct your writing is, the more likely it will stand out amongst all of the other confusing, imprecise ideas in the pile. Keeping it short, simple, and direct will allow your audience to focus on your ideas rather than the writing itself. 4. Quotation abuse This goes for almost any type of writing, whether it’s for English, history, or even a science paper: block quotes should be used with extreme caution. They wouldn’t exist if they werent entirely unnecessary, but for the most part your six-page paper on 1984 should not require quotes longer than two lines. Relying too heavily on the original work shows a lack of your own unique ideas. It also has the unfortunate side effect of making your writing boring. If your teacher only wanted to read George Orwell’s work, they wouldn’t have assigned the paper in the first place. The general rule of thumb is: for every line of quotation, you should have twice as much analysis. Only quote the parts of the work that directly support the ideas you are trying to convey. That said, make sure you are quoting enough of the original work as well. Your claims need evidence to support them, because it shows that you are not pulling them out of thin air. You need to strike that balance between too much and too little, because failure to do so weakens your argument considerably. 5. A semicolon for a semicolon’s sake The semicolon is a tricky beast. A lot of people aren’t entirely sure what its function is, but use it regardless because they feel that a paper needs a semicolon to take it to the next level. If you aren’t sure what the function of a semicolon is, don’t attempt to use one. Your writing will not magically become better with the introduction of a semicolon, and the misuse of it will be a red flag in the middle of your work that screams that you don’t know what you’re doing. If you still really want to use a semicolon, here’s the cases in which a semicolon is appropriate: Separating items in a list that use internal punctuation. Here’s an example: Several people came to the party: Anna, a friend of Steven; Joel, my brother’s coworker; and Madison, the chairman’s daughter. Separating two independent clauses that are closely related without the use of a coordinating conjunction. My computer is acting up; I think I need to take it in to be looked at. Separating two independent clauses that are linked by a transitional phrase. I wish I could do something for you; unfortunately, it is out of my hands at this point. Except for the first case, the most important thing to remember about a semicolon is that each part before and after this punctuation should be able to serve as a complete sentence on its own. If you have any doubt over whether you are using a semicolon properly, just abandon it. Oftentimes it can be replaced by a period without any impact on your writing. It is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to semicolons.

Mmmm, You Dirty Rat!

Mmmm, You Dirty Rat! Mmmm, You Dirty Rat! Mmmm, You Dirty Rat! By Maeve Maddox Its the rare media mention of Wall Street con man Bernie Madoff that doesn’t contain the word rat in some context. Bernard Madoff is an evil crook but apparently not a rat. The Big Rats off to the Big House for Life, What About the Little Rats? Madoff may rat out co-conspirators They [Mr. and Mrs. Madoff] seemed to stay apart from the herd,† the club member said. â€Å"They chose not to get into that social rat race.† U.S. District Judge Denny Chin who presumably will sentence Madoff said that he’d sharply limit the number of Madoff victims who get to shake their fist in the swindler’s face and tell him what a rat he is†¦ It is almost inconceivable that Madoff could have spent 20 years squirreling away clients money in a Chase Manhattan bank account, conducting virtually no legitimate transactions, without anybody at Madoff Investment Securities smelling a rat – The etymological origin of the word rat is lost in the mists of the long history shared by this repugnant animal and human beings. (I know, white rats make nice pets. Im talking about nasty rats au naturel.) The OED offers several possible origins, but concludes: It is uncertain whether the Latin and Romance words are cognate with the Germanic words, or whether they were borrowed from Germanic, or vice versa; in any case the ultimate origin is uncertain; perhaps imitative of the sound of gnawing. The OED also offers seven entries for rat as a noun and three for rat as a verb. The literal meaning of rat is, of course, a rodent resembling a large mouse, often with a naked or sparsely haired tail. Then there are the figurative uses that derive from the fact that rats are associated with filth and that they are said to be quick to leave a sinking ship or a falling house. The sense of rat as one who abandons his associates was in use in 1629. rat as a noun rat a despicable person, especially one who betrays or informs upon associates. rat scab laborer NOTE: a scab is either an employee who works while his colleagues are on strike, or an outsider hired to replace a striking worker. rat a pad of material, typically hair, worn as part of a womans coiffure to puff out her own hair. rat as a verb rat intransitive verb to desert a party, cause, or princple; to go over as a deserter; to abandon, desert, or betray any person or thing. rat transitive verb to backcomb or tease hair rat intransitive to act as an informer; to betray to the police or other authorities rat on to inform on a person rat out to inform on a person; to betray a person to the police or other authorities Other rat words and expressions rat-fink teenage slang from the 60s. A pleonasm since either rat or fink alone can mean an informant or, as verbs to inform. rat-race A fiercely competitive race or contest; spec. urban working life regarded as an unremitting struggle for wealth ., status, etc. ratsbane arsenic rathole messy, nasty place rat-pack juvenile gang; celebrities surrounding Frank Sinatra to smell a rat to suspect that something is wrong Rat has even become a suffix to create words that mean person who frequents such and such a place: dock-rat, bar-rat, rug-rat, etc. My brother, like many Cagney impersonators, thought he was quoting Cagney when he said, with appropriate grimaces and inflections, Mmmmm, you dirty rat! According to the Wikipedia Cagney bio, what Cagney really said in the movie Taxi! was Come out and take it, you dirty, yellow-bellied rat, or Ill give it to you through the door! Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Expressions category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Homograph ExamplesThe Letter "Z" Will Be Removed from the English AlphabetThe "Pied" in The Pied Piper

Risk Management in Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc Essay

Risk Management in Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc - Essay Example The object of analysis for the purpose of this assignment is Brewin Dolphin Holding PLC (BDH), a company that offers investment services to its client. The industry in which the company operates is the financial services. Brewin Dolphin Holding offers private investment advice to its richly diverse customers. The company operates in the following markets: England, Wales and the Channel Islands, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Bell Lawrie, Wise Speke in the North of England, and Hill Osborne in the East Midlands. This shows the extent of local market coverage by the Brewin Dolphin plc. BDH operates several subsidiaries which are wholly owned. The subsidiaries include Brewin Nominees Limited, North Castle Street (Nominee) Limited, and Brewin Dolphin Limited (that manages investments). In the recent past, the company formulated and implemented a new strategy that boosted the transformation rate of the services offered and increased the overall growth rate. The company operations are divided into two segments such as the investment management and corporate advisory and broking. Under the investment management segment, the following are the investment management advisory services provided by the company: pensions (including self-invested Pension plans), inheritance tax relief, ISAs and other tax-efficient investments, and international investment portfolios. Under the Corporate advisory and broking segment, the following activities are undertaken: market research, trading and sales services, and activities involving merger and acquisitions, debt advisory services among others. There is an increase in the demand for personal financial management advisory services. Thus, there is an anticipation of future growth in the market. The driving force behind the increase in demand is the increasing rate at which the society strives to become financially independent. In the United Kingdom alone, two million individuals were estimated to own liquid assets in excess of  £ 100,000 by the end of the year 2012. By that time, only  £ 548 billion of the funds were under the management of wealth management companies in the UK. Out of the eleven wealth management companies, Brewin Dolphin managed 15% of the total funds, giving a market share of 15%.

Greek and Roman Civilizations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Greek and Roman Civilizations - Essay Example Socially, Greece in the archaic period of civilization was constituted by various independent states by the name polis or in other words city states. The Athens polis was the biggest and it covered approximately 2,500 km squared while other polis were smaller and would only cover about 250 km squared. The society of Greece was formed up by slaves and free people. Slaves were owned by the group of free people. They usually worked as laborers and servants and had no rights legally. These slaves would sometimes be war prisoners or would originate from foreign traders of slaves. Slaves usually lived very closely to their owners, but just a few of them were skilled as craftsmen or even paid. As the society of Greece continued to develop, the free men became divided into two Metics and Citizens. Citizens would be born of parents from Athens and these formed the most powerful group of people. They would perform roles in the Government of polis. They would undergo a compulsory service in the army of Greece and later become government officials as well as play part in the service of jury. Metics, on the other hand, would be of foreign birth but migrate to Athens. These would either practice craft or take part in trade. Metics would pay taxes and at given times would be called up to take part in army service. They would never achieve full rights as those accorded to the citizens. They would also not own land or houses and even worse would not speak in courts of law on any given matter. Note that the social classes would only apply to men while women would be part of the class that their partners formed. (Rips, 2008 pp957, 958) A major defining as well as long-term Greek char acteristics was the political system. Democracy as a form of rule was a bit a complex issue in Greece and the system of politics of Greece was highly linked to the rationalism belief of Greeks. The basis of the political sys

Funeral Homes Studies: Overcharging

Funeral Homes Studies: Overcharging Running head: FUNERAL HOMES Abstract The overcharging of consumers by funeral homes was investigated to prove to consumers that they are being overcharged, and to show them some ways to avoid being overcharged. The goal was to show precisely when the funeral homes are taking advantage of the consumer, and to show that consumers need to be aware that funeral homes have more than one way of taking advantage of them and overcharging them in large amounts. The effects of this severe problem were determined by looking over a law that has been put into place to subdue the crime, ways the crime is committed, and also an interview that was conducted to gather information on one of many alternatives to using the traditional funeral service. There are many alternatives to the traditional funeral; most people just dont know where to learn about them. Funeral Homes: The Overcharging For Services and Distrust Behind It It is not easy to lose a loved one. In addition, it is not always easy for a person to find out how much it is going to cost them and their family to give their loved one the proper burial they deserve. During the time of grieving, the family of the deceased is not really concerned with the costs of the funeral, for all they are looking for is a proper burial or funeral ceremony for their loved one. The cost of a typical funeral in the United States in 1983 was around $2,500.00 (Darmstadter, 1983). Solomon (n.d.) states that â€Å"the average funeral in the United States costs $6,500, according to the National Funeral Directors Association. The true sum can easily reach $10,000 once a burial plot, flowers and other costs are included, the AARP says.† This price is from around 2004; consumers need to be aware that the prices are steadily rising, and that if they dont watch out for those funeral homes that try to get more money out of them, they could end up losing thousands mor e dollars than is necessary to spend on a funeral service. The crime of funeral homes taking advantage of consumers has been around for many years, and in 1984 The Funeral Rule was put into place in order to put a stop to it. â€Å"On September 24, 1982, the FTC published a ruling known in the Federal Register as the Funeral Rule† (Schwartz, Jolson, Lee, 1986). â€Å"Under the Rule, the FTC mandates that funeral homes allow customers to buy only those things they choose† (Mark, n.d.). Many people do not realize that during these times of vulnerability, the funeral home they have trusted the care of their loved one with, could be taking advantage of them; overcharging them for already expensive services. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers for their services. They are taking advantage of them while they are most vulnerable in an emotionally distraught state as they are preoccupied in grieving for the loss of a loved one, and when they are in a hurry to plan a funeral for a sudden death. Funeral homes have several ways of overcharging consumers, and two of the most prominent ways they do this is by teaming up with hospice care centers and by quoting the wrong prices if they will even quote them at all. Discussion Taking advantage of vulnerability. The funeral homes of America take advantage of the bereaved when they are most vulnerable. One of the most common times that a funeral home will take advantage of the bereaved is when they are in the middle of grieving, trying to set up a funeral while they are emotionally distraught. Schlozman and La Grand (1985) state that â€Å"death in a family is a personal, emotional experience that can have long term emotional and physical consequences for survivors (cited in Butler, 2007, p. 95). Funeral directors look for the best chance that they can get to get a grieving person to agree to buy something or to set up an expensive funeral; while the bereaved are emotionally distraught, which is mostly in the beginning of the funeral planning process, is when this happens the most. Many funeral directors will say that funeral homes are not taking advantage of consumers when they are â€Å"most vulnerable,† they are simply taking the necessary steps to make sure that the consumer gets what they need and what they ask for so as to get the funeral done in the most complete way possible. When a consumer is preoccupied in grieving for the loss of a loved one, they may be emotionally distraught and kind of out of their norm, however this does not mean that all funeral directors are low enough to take advantage of consumers. Most funeral directors deal with so many emotional people everyday they are at their workplace, that most of them know what it is like for a person to fe el the way they do therefore they will not go out of their way to take advantage of them for that little bit of extra money. As one can see, this is clearly not the case. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one at times when they are most vulnerable, and with pre-planning, this can be partly eliminated. The funeral homes of America also take advantage of the bereaved when they are in a hurry to get the funeral set up. There is not much time between when a person passes away, and the time the funeral needs to be set up and followed through with. â€Å"Most of the major decisions regarding funeral arrangements must be made within 24-48 hours (Sommer, Nelson, and Hoyt, 1985). Many people do not know that their loved one is going to pass on when they do, so they are in a frantic hurry to get the funeral set up and that is what gets them into such a bind with the funeral homes taking advantage of and overcharging them. One thing that a person who is in a hurry to set up a funeral typically does is calls funeral homes in their area asking for price quotes. When a person uses the phone to contact funeral homes about prices, they can â€Å"compare prices among funeral providers,† this may eventually help them to decide which funeral home and arrangement they would like to consider (USA Funeral Homes Online, 1999). Also, when a person is in a hurry to set up a funeral for a loved one, it is advised that they gather â€Å"price lists† from some of the funeral homes in their area â€Å"to compare pricing and options† (Wilke, 2005). Mark (n.d.) states that â€Å"the funeral rule also requires that GPLs (â€Å"General Price Lists†) list the prices of up to 16 items if they are services that the funeral home offers. . . .† If a person were to go around to funeral homes in their area, a general price list is a good tool that the funeral homes are required to give them, so t hey know the prices, thus promoting smart decision making, and the possibility of preventing being overcharged and taken advantage of. It is often though that when a consumer has a sudden death in the family and they are in a hurry to plan a funeral, most funeral directors are not going out of their way to overcharge them to get that little bit of extra money. They may indeed be overcharging them; however, they may simply be charging the prices they do because they want to be sure to get the consumer everything that they need since the process is so hurried in this type of situation. These thoughts are obviously not relevant because, as one can see, if the funeral directors were as caring as they make them seem, they would give any unused money back to the consumer when the funeral is all said and done. Shopping around for the best priced funeral home, and ignoring any suggestions given by hospice care centers, could be one of the most important ways for a consumer to greatly decrease the chance of being overcharged. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one, at times whe n they are in a hurry to plan a funeral for a sudden death, and with pre-planning and smart decision making, this can be partly eliminated. Teaming up with hospice care centers. Consumers need to be aware that funeral homes have different ways of overcharging them. One of the main ways this happens is when funeral homes go together with hospice care centers. The Hospice Patients Alliance (n.d.) states that: One of the major scams committed by such rogue hospices is to refer the family to one particular funeral home, if they havent made arrangements beforehand with another funeral home. The funeral home then charges their very highest rates for funeral home services and the family has no idea that they have been scammed, because they trust the â€Å"compassionate† hospice people. If individuals go to that funeral home directly inquiring about charges for funeral services, they get offered discounted rates, but hospice referrals get charged the highest rates. When funeral homes team up with hospice care centers, they can overcharge consumers large amounts of money, and they can do it very discreetly. Many people would not suspect a hospice care center to refer them to a high priced funeral home; this is why consumers need to be aware that this could happen. Consumers need to be aware that shopping around for a funeral home with the best prices is one of the best things they can do to prevent being overcharged, even if a hospice care center that their family trusts recommends a funeral home, or they are pressed with time and any other issue that may come their way. The Hospice Patients Alliance (n.d.) states that â€Å"you do not have to use the funeral home â€Å"recommended† by a hospice. They should not be recommending any funeral homes that is a decision for you to make, not the hospice.† Many funeral directors will say that funeral homes may indeed be teaming up with hospice care centers in being sure that the funeral ho me will have a steady flow of business on account of the recommendations given by the hospice care centers; but this does not mean that they are doing it to overcharge the consumers. They may in fact be doing this simply to help the family eliminate the hassle of finding a funeral home and going through the process of looking for price quotes, etc. This is clearly not the case as one can see, simply because if funeral directors were as caring as they seem, they would not be trying to get consumers away from looking for price quotes and things like that, they would help them find the funeral home they are looking for, or be sure to accommodate their needs as best they can. Also, if a funeral home has that much trouble getting business, something needs to be done, and that funeral home should probably be looked at as a fraud. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. Many people do not realize that it may not only be the funeral home that is in on the scam; hospice care centers play a major role in this deception of the consumers also. Quoting the wrong prices. Another quite common way that funeral homes overcharge consumers is by quoting the wrong prices over the phone, or not quoting any at all. There are many people that are pressed for time when it comes down to planning a funeral, and most of them resort to calling funeral homes to inquire about prices. What many people do not realize, is that the funeral homes may not be giving them the right price quote, and many of them quickly find out that the funeral home may not give them a price quote at all. The reason that some funeral homes do not give any price quotes at all, would be so they could adjust the prices accordingly to each and every funeral they conduct. â€Å"The funeral home is required to give you a free copy of the price list when you visit. Its also required to tell you its prices over the phone. If a funeral director refuses to do so, suggesting instead that you come in for an appointment, That should be a warning sign, Slocum says† (Block, 2006). Many consumers do not know this important piece of information. The laws that regulate the funeral homes of America are not posted around the nation as are the everyday laws that the people of America are required to follow. This is why, when shopping around for a well priced funeral home; consumers need to be aware of the laws so as to catch the hints that are thrown at them. The hints that should make them think that perhaps they should not trust some funeral homes that they have come in contact with. When a person that is frantically trying to set up a funeral calls a funeral home, they do not expect to be taken advantage of and overcharged because most Americans would agree that this is a very serious business, and that most every funeral home should be trustworthy. However, that is not the case. When consumers are calling funeral homes over the phone, they need to be aware of the potential dangers that it entails. Common thought of consumers is that when a consumer contacts a funeral home over the phone seeking quotes on prices for their services, the funeral directors may quote the wrong prices; this does not mean that is what will be charged. Many funeral directors care enough to provide the consumers only with what they need or would like to have for the funeral, so the prices they quote may only be a ball-park figure for the general funeral service. When a funeral home does not quote a price at all, this may be to eliminate the problem of quoting the wrong prices, or even to eliminate competition between them and other funeral homes. Consumers may be frustrated by this, but in all reality this may be something that could help them because if they went with a funeral home that does not quote a price, they may actually end up spending less money than they would at a funeral home that quoted a price that was too high. The thoughts are clearly irrelevant because if funeral homes were quoting ball-park figures, they would most likely state that the prices they are giving are ball park. Also, if a funeral home does not quote a price at all and others do, it is most obvious that they are planning on giving prices when the funeral is over with so as to inflate the prices and not be detected. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. If consumers are aware of the potential dangers of calling funeral homes for price quotes, and the laws that are supposed to regulate them, this could greatly decrease the risk of being overcharged. Ways to avoid being overcharged. There are many things that can be done for a person to prevent being overcharged when they are working with a funeral home to set up a funeral. The most prominent of all alternatives is full body organ donation, which many people participate in. As Carol Wright (personal communication, February 29, 2008) described, full body organ donation is when a person chooses to donate their entire body to an organization of choice before they die. When they die, the organization will pick up their body from wherever they are, and ship them to where the body will be used. After the organization is done using the body for all intents and purposes, they cremate it and send the remains to a family member for a $25.00 shipping fee. Another well-known alternative to being overcharged by a funeral is by using traditional organ donation. This will give the family time to plan the funeral as the hospital or some other form of medical personnel removes the organ(s) the deceased has agreed to donate after death, thus slimming the possibility of being overcharged by the funeral home because it gives the family time to look around and find the best prices available to them. One good thing about organ donation is that there have been, for the families of people who donate while they are alive and after they have died, some â€Å"financial and health care-related reimbursement incentives widely debated† (Boulware, Troll, Wang, Powe, 2006). Many people dont realize that without these alternatives, nearly every person in the United States would be taken advantage of at some time or another by a funeral home. The Federal Trade Commission (2000) stated that: To relieve their families of some of these decisions, an increasing number of people are planning their own funerals, designating their own funeral preferences, and sometimes even paying for them in advance. They see funeral planning as an extension of will and estate planning. If someone in a family dies, and there has been no planning for a funeral whatsoever, the family members that are to do the planning for the funeral are left in a bind. If a person plans their own funeral, the surviving family is left with â€Å"the precedent, information and moral support needed to get the type of service it wants† (Bender, 1974). To eliminate funeral homes taking advantage of and overcharging the bereaved, as The Federal Trade Commissions and Bender state, a person should think about planning their own funeral so that it is set in stone, and the surviving family has much less of a chance of being pressured into meaningless spending while they are most vulnerable. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. Review Major issues. There have been two major issues discussed in this writing about how funeral homes overcharge consumers; the first being that many funeral homes take advantage of consumers when they are most vulnerable. There were two times in which this happens quite often that were discussed here. The first is when consumers are tied up in grieving and pre-occupied with the whole funeral planning process, and getting things organized and followed through with. The second is when the consumer is pressed for time trying to plan a sudden funeral, and the funeral home takes this hurried process to their advantage. The second major issue discussed is that consumers need to be aware that funeral homes have different ways of overcharging them. There were two of the most common ways discussed here; the first being that funeral homes overcharge by teaming up with hospice care centers, and the second being that the funeral homes either quote the wrong prices over the phone, or in person, or they simply do not give prices at all, so as to inflate them accordingly with each and every funeral they conduct. Expenses. The most popular way for consumers to recognize the death of a loved one is to plan for a traditional funeral. Traditional funerals can be very costly, and often times not exactly what the consumer was looking for when it is all said and done. Most people would agree that the traditional funeral is the best way to go about putting a loved one to rest; however, when funeral homes are overcharging for these services that are already overpriced, it is hard for some consumers to follow through with it because of the fear of running out of money before it is all done with. Darmstadter (1983) stated that â€Å"the purchase of a funeral is the third largest single expenditure after a home and a car, that many of us will ever have to make.† Alternatives to the traditional funeral service. There are many alternatives to the traditional funeral service, and the most prominent one of those is organ donation. Full body organ donation and traditional organ donation were discussed earlier in the writing. Full body organ donation is when a person has agreed to donate their body to science after thy have passed on. Traditional organ donation is when a person agrees to allow any of their organs that are useable, to be donated to another human being after they have passed on. These are two of the most prominent ways for consumers to avoid being overcharged by funeral homes; and they are used most commonly by people who did not do any pre-planning for their funeral. What many consumers do not realize is that these options are readily available to anyone who would like to take advantage of them; they are just not advertised since death is such a sheltered topic in the United States. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. When a consumer is looking around trying to plan a funeral, one of the best ways to avoid being taken advantage of is to be aware of what is happening, and how funeral homes are actually taking advantage of consumers, and what they can do to avoid being take advantage of. A solution to the problem of funeral homes taking advantage of consumers would be for the consumer to shop around for funeral prices and arrangements in advance when anticipating a funeral. Sure, not every person will have time to do this since not all deaths are anticipated; however, this problem will be greatly eliminated if those consumers who are anticipating the death do in fact plan the funeral ahead of time, so as to have the time to go around and shop for the best prices and have the funeral set up the way in which they so desire. Planning a funeral is can be an overwhelming time for the consumer; however, following the simple suggestions that have been given throughout this writing may in fact make the job a lot easier. People need to be aware that in times like these where life just seems like it is not worth living, life will go on. As long as consumers are aware of what is happening out there in the funeral service industry, and they plan for things ahead if possible, problems like these may be wholly eliminated all together.

Drug Testing for Welfare

The Push for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful.In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States awmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry. This year, 29 states have either proposed or already passed legislation calling for drug testing to receive welfare benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great deal of financial loss as a resu lt of this legislation: During the past year, the state of Utah has spent over $30,000 giving drug tests to welfare recipients.In that time period, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have used illegal substances † well below the national use rate of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report: In 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn't return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The numbers do not lie†little evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work ferven tly. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U. S. citizens.The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U. S. governmental policy. Karen Gustafson is someone who knows a lot about the criminalization of the poor. She has spent much of her time researching and writing about Just that. According to Gustafson, â€Å"The public desire to deter and punish welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to vulnerable members of society (644). † Because of the misuse of welfare funds by a few, the entire underprivileged population has been targeted as criminals†as lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United States government has spent billions of dollars in an effort to catch and prosecute those who are abusing the wel fare system. This practice is necessary in order to rid the welfare system of abusers. However, often verlooked is the fact that there are many recipients who are not drug users and are still in need of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. government to provide aid without encouraging potential participants to teel like they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the application process.The cross-agency process involved in the welfare and criminal Justice systems is unconstitutional and an invasion of the privacy of the American underprivileged. As welfare reform began to take place so did the social misconception that recipients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the same treatment as parolees and probationers. This is in part due to the fact that too many law enforcement techniques are embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us: Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal recor ds The financial information she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and Franchise Tax Board records Her personal information has been entered into the welfare system's database, which may be accessed by law enforcement officers without any basis for suspicion All f this has occurred before she has received a single welfare check (645). There is no doubt that those Americans in need of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, all of the needy are being unfairly scrutinized. The implementation of unfounded drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing application process will only serve to further stigmatize the needy†and all in the name of the mighty dollar. Some believe that it is not the quest to save money that is the driving force behind the push for this legislation. Rather, it is a desire to make millions for the pharmaceutical com panies that lawmakers are seeking to achieve.Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers' policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U. S. government. Macdonald reports: several Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed hard for the mandatory drug testing of anyone, nywhere, applying for welfare.Leading the charge in the senate is Orrin Hatch who received $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the political action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from another political action committee to which LabCorp contributes, as well as $4000 in campaign contributions from another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only la wmaker with these corporations in his pocket. â€Å"GOP Congressman Charles Boustany received $1 5,000 from Abbott Laboratories (15).The fact that Congressmen and women are receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies is disturbing to say the least. The American underprivileged do not stand a chance at ever overcoming their circumstances as long as lawmakers continue to be driven by greed, rather than their best interest. If United States lawmakers really had the best interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer resources on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the underlying mental and physical causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, â€Å"Even among women who eported recent illicit substance abuse, depression, physical health problems and limited education were actually more common barriers to self-sufficiency and social tunctioning(2) † Pollack turtner states, â€Å"Most weltare recipients [ . ] were casual mar ijuana users who didn't meet screening criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most sensitive to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). Mental and physical disabilities and the lack of healthcare are often the underlying cause of drug use to begin with as a means of self-medication. These issues receive far too little attention in the U. S. government policy decisions, unlike that of drug use. Pollack's research outlines the statistical data on illicit drug use as it compares to mental and physical health problems: However one runs the numbers, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. Other physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent. Drug Testing for Welfare The Push for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful.In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States awmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry. This year, 29 states have either proposed or already passed legislation calling for drug testing to receive welfare benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great deal of financial loss as a resu lt of this legislation: During the past year, the state of Utah has spent over $30,000 giving drug tests to welfare recipients.In that time period, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have used illegal substances † well below the national use rate of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report: In 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn't return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The numbers do not lie†little evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work ferven tly. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U. S. citizens.The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U. S. governmental policy. Karen Gustafson is someone who knows a lot about the criminalization of the poor. She has spent much of her time researching and writing about Just that. According to Gustafson, â€Å"The public desire to deter and punish welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to vulnerable members of society (644). † Because of the misuse of welfare funds by a few, the entire underprivileged population has been targeted as criminals†as lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United States government has spent billions of dollars in an effort to catch and prosecute those who are abusing the wel fare system. This practice is necessary in order to rid the welfare system of abusers. However, often verlooked is the fact that there are many recipients who are not drug users and are still in need of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. government to provide aid without encouraging potential participants to teel like they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the application process.The cross-agency process involved in the welfare and criminal Justice systems is unconstitutional and an invasion of the privacy of the American underprivileged. As welfare reform began to take place so did the social misconception that recipients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the same treatment as parolees and probationers. This is in part due to the fact that too many law enforcement techniques are embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us: Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal recor ds The financial information she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and Franchise Tax Board records Her personal information has been entered into the welfare system's database, which may be accessed by law enforcement officers without any basis for suspicion All f this has occurred before she has received a single welfare check (645). There is no doubt that those Americans in need of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, all of the needy are being unfairly scrutinized. The implementation of unfounded drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing application process will only serve to further stigmatize the needy†and all in the name of the mighty dollar. Some believe that it is not the quest to save money that is the driving force behind the push for this legislation. Rather, it is a desire to make millions for the pharmaceutical com panies that lawmakers are seeking to achieve.Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers' policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U. S. government. Macdonald reports: several Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed hard for the mandatory drug testing of anyone, nywhere, applying for welfare.Leading the charge in the senate is Orrin Hatch who received $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the political action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from another political action committee to which LabCorp contributes, as well as $4000 in campaign contributions from another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only la wmaker with these corporations in his pocket. â€Å"GOP Congressman Charles Boustany received $1 5,000 from Abbott Laboratories (15).The fact that Congressmen and women are receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies is disturbing to say the least. The American underprivileged do not stand a chance at ever overcoming their circumstances as long as lawmakers continue to be driven by greed, rather than their best interest. If United States lawmakers really had the best interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer resources on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the underlying mental and physical causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, â€Å"Even among women who eported recent illicit substance abuse, depression, physical health problems and limited education were actually more common barriers to self-sufficiency and social tunctioning(2) † Pollack turtner states, â€Å"Most weltare recipients [ . ] were casual mar ijuana users who didn't meet screening criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most sensitive to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). Mental and physical disabilities and the lack of healthcare are often the underlying cause of drug use to begin with as a means of self-medication. These issues receive far too little attention in the U. S. government policy decisions, unlike that of drug use. Pollack's research outlines the statistical data on illicit drug use as it compares to mental and physical health problems: However one runs the numbers, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. Other physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent.