ample by My Essay Writer

I most strongly advocate for the federalists because I agree that the articles included in Confederation weren’t really effective enough, as they were so vague and not encompassing. I hold the view that the government was weak in its early stages and didn’t have enough power to control the people, (Antifederalists, 2001). The government needed to become stronger in order to have more authority over foreign trade and the activities of the populace, to a certain degree. In order to be strong, the nation needed people who were well-educated and experienced; otherwise, the nation was at risk of having uncooperative states. This government is necessary in order for the rights of the people to be protected. Without a government, people were at risk and society could not function in a just fashion. The Constitution gave equal rights and didn’t favor people in power, though there were some who needed to have power in order to establish the authority of the government. Furthermore, in order for government to function in a logical manner, the church and state needed to be separated. Without such a separation, the government stood the risk of being controlled by the church, which has its aim at honoring God, rather than what is best for the nation, (Antifederalists, 2001).


Sample by My Essay Writer

In the paper, “May this Never Happen Again,” the author describes a scene at a college where two survivors of the atom bomb that struck Hiroshima, Japan, in the Second World War speak. Also speaking is the eldest grandson of ex-president Harry Truman, who was the president who authorized the attack on Hiroshima and who knew of the deadly consequences that would last a generation. The brother of a girl who was killed by atomic bomb disease has more than 1,000 paper cranes that his sister made to try to appease the gods so that she could overcome her illness and live. It didn’t work, but he is handing them out to promote peace and so that people remember those who died in Hiroshima so that it doesn’t happen again.

The people in the cities that were bombed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, didn’t know that the bombs coming out of the sky that day were atomic. One of the survivors came to the microphone to speak. He was six years old when his city was attacked by the Americans. He said the initial attack on Nagasaki was like, “A thousand lighting strikes at once.” His mom grabbed him before covering him with her body. After their house was demolished, they survived and looked for help at a nearby community center. They went from one shelter to the other as the children tried to keep themselves entertained.

People were called to help at the front lines because supplies were limited and the labor was cheap. Many girls were told to help with the agricultural supplies. Female duties included decoding secret messages that were communicated at the Hiroshima armyheadquarters. The girl survivor described a scene to the audience where she was knocked down by the blast and someone encouraged her to get up and find safety. What she found was about two football fields of people dying and begging for water.


Sample by My Essay Writer

The American Revolution is perhaps the most major piece of history in the United States. It is what allowed the nation to be sovereign from the rule of Great Britain. While the revolution was an idea among the American people from the mid-1700s, it wasn’t until 1976 that the Declaration of Independence was written and then the war finally ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The British monarchy did not do a lot to discourage the colonists not to attack, as their taxes, lack of representation in Parliament and general attitude towards the colonists made the revolution the only logical course of action.

The idea of separation from Great Britain perhaps began as soon as the completion of the French and Indian War and the American colonists saw the triumph that could result from victory. “They increasingly saw themselves as a separate entity, one that could defend itself against any opposing threat,” (Stanley, 1998). Great Britain, which was ruled by King George III at the time, decided in light of the reported perception among the Americans, to increase taxes and restrict the colonies in other ways. This prompted even more outrage among the colonial Americans, and so the war started. One of the taxes that particularly irked the Americans was the Sugar Act in 1764. This tax was designed to make the colonies pay for the French and Indian War. The act taxed for molasses and sugar. James Otis and Samuel Adams felt there was taxation without representation and this message was carried throughout the colonists. The Stamp Act was another source of contention for the colonists. It came into effect in 1765 and was designed to raise money to help pay for the cost of British troops in the colonies. The money was to remain in America. “However, this small token of generosity from Parliament did little to cool the growing anger of the colonists who felt that this act impinged upon their rights as British subjects,” (Library, 1996). The colonists felt the Stamp Act was unconstitutional because the British Constitution only allows for English subjects to be taxed by representatives that they chose. But they didn’t choose the representatives in Parliament that approved the act. The Act was called the Stamp Act because it required a stamp to be placed on all the paper goods that a colonist purchased. The colonists refused to buy the goods or pay for the tax, and so the merchants asked the British government to repeal it, which they did in 1766.

One year after the Stamp Act was repealed, the British Parliament imposed the Townsend Acts. These Acts granted duties in the British colonies and plantations on products such as glass, paper, paints, tea and lead. The money went towards paying for the military and colonial governors’ salaries. Great Britain eventually ended all the taxes, except for the tax on tea. “After a revolt, the British Parliament sent troops to the colonies because the colonists were getting so violent… Britain was getting scared,” (The Townshend, 1996). But the British Parliament was not finished with their taxation, as they further aggravated the colonists. In 1773, they added the Tea Act, which provided the East India Company to sell its tea at a reduced price to the colonists. This was intended to stop the boycott of tea and lower the amount of smuggling that was taking place. “Colonists, fearing this would set a precedent that would put the colonial merchant out of business, made a united front against the Tea Act,” (Stanley, 1998). The Boston Tea party boarded three of the ships carrying the tea and dumped it into the ocean. When the Prime Minister of England heard of the news, Parliament punished Massachusetts with the Intolerable Acts, which closed Boston Harbor until the cost of the tea was repaid, the royal governor was also able to say when the Massachusetts legislature could meet, crimes committed by a royal officer would be tried in England and colonists had to provide a place for British soldiers to live, as well as candles and drinks for the men.

Works Cited
Adi, H. (2012). Africa and the Transatlantic Slave TradeBBC.

Brians, P. (1998). The Enlightenment. Washington State University.

Hardy, W. (2005). Riches & Misery: The Consequences of the Atlantic Slave TradeThe Open 

Harrold, S. (2000). Abolitionist MovementSouth Carolina State University. 

Lal, V. (2001). The Mughal EmpireUniversity California Los Angeles.

Library, L. (1996, Dec. 19). American History DocumentsIndiana University. 

Stanley, U. (1998, Jan. 28). The Causes of the American RevolutionGeorge Mason University. 

Swan, D. (2013). Decline of the Ottoman and Safavid EmpiresAcademia. 

The Townshend Acts. (1996, Dec. 19). University of Vermont.


Sample by My Essay Writer

Many similarities exist between Hamlet and Twelve Ophelias, but they have many differences. Essentially, the storylines are consistent, but each focuses on a different character, at a different period in the complete story. Twelve Ophelias is a play with broken song written by Caridad Svich. In this essay I will describe the differences between the two stories, and base that discussion around the idea about the focus on each of the characters. The most challenging part for Svich was to find a way to focus in on Ophelia, despite her being killed in Hamlet. After he accomplishes this the story unfolds, and reveals the ways that it is different from Hamlet.

12 Ophelias has many of the same elements that Hamlet has, but the key difference is the main character. In 12 Ophelias, Ophelia is resurrected from the water after she died in Hamlet. When she rises out of the water, she is on a mission to do away with her past and to try to create a new destiny for her life. She is in an Appalachian Elsinore, in Denmark. In this place, Gertrude runs a brother, and Hamlet and Horatio slum it. All that she is experiencing is not what it seems. This is much more different than Hamlet where everything around him is essentially what its physical appearance would make the audience think.

The play is much more American than Hamlet, even though it still takes place in Denmark, which Hamlet also does. It is essentially an interpretation of Hamlet’s myth. The central question is about how it is possible to be able to break the old cycles and to start a fresh new cycle when the past history controls your life.

After reading each of these plays, it is clear to see why the authors of each chose each of the names. It is only appropriate that Ophelia is given her own story. This is best because it is a focus on her, and it shows more about what she is like. In Hamlet, there is not really the type of emphasis given to Ophelia like she deserves. Hamlet shows many of the similarities between the two characters, but it does not show many of the differences. Due to the central character in each of the plays, each author needed to create a different name.

Hamlet shows Ophelia as having much of the same madness that she has. Ophelia is very crazy. The two seem to be responsible for the other’s madness. There are so many of the mechanical regularities in both of the plays. Each author makes it so that the audience sympathizes for each of the lead characters in the respective plays. In Hamlet, the audience responds to the emotional maladies. This happens in many of the same ways that they respond to the emotional maladies in Twelve Ophelias. “The mechanical regularities of such emotional maladies as they are presented within Hamlet, not only allow his audience to sympathize with the tragic prince Hamlet, but to provide the very complexities necessary in understanding the tragedy of his, ironically similar, lady Ophelia as well” (Shakespear’s, n.d.).

It is interesting to see Ophelia’s perspective about Hamlet. While he is depicted as being somewhat of an intellectual in Hamlet, Ophelia refers to him as “Rude Boy.” The journey that Ophelia takes in this play indicates that she is not crazy. Instead, she is finally able to find herself again at the end of the play. She is broken by love, and then she finds herself again. Hamlet and Ophelia are very in love. But Hamlet has sworn to avenge his father’s death by killing his uncle. Hamlet only appears to go crazy so that his uncle will admit he killed his father.It is because Hamlet rejects her that she drowns herself. She truly went mad, but Hamlet only pretended to go mad.

It is interesting to see that this play takes place 400 years after Hamlet. Ophelia has a cold and empty memory of the past, but she is full of desire. Hamlet is in this play also, and he lives with his mom. Ophelia wants to find him, and this is her turn to lead the story.

In each of these plays, it is interesting to see the different perspectives. Both of the plays are centered on madness. One of them actually goes mad, Ophelia, and the other does not go mad, Hamlet. Each of the authors names the title in the way that they do because the title character changes. It is only appropriate the Twelve Ophelias is named after Ophelia, because it is about her. The same thing goes for Hamlet, which is about Hamlet, so it makes sense and that is obviously why each is titled in the way that they are.

Works Cited

“’12 Ophelias’ Presented March 6-10 and 12-14 at CSU, Chico.” (2013). California State 

Hamlet Conundrums.” (2013). University of California, Santa Cruz. Retrieved from

Shakespeare, W. (1999). Hamlet. New York. Cambridge University Press

Simon, S. (2008). “12 Ophelias” Brings “Hamlet” Heroine Back to Life. NY1.

Svich, C. (2004). Twelve Ophelias. New York. Bernhard DeBoer.

Twelve Ophelias (A play with broken songs).” (2013). CaridadSvich.com.


Sample by My Essay Writer

The Department of Health and Aging says depression will be the second-leading cause of death (behind heart disease) by 2032, (Age, 2012). But happiness is the ultimate goal of most people. It is what people yearn for more than anything else. So the thought that happiness deteriorates over time is somewhat of a concern for all people, as we are all subject to the aging process. In this essay, I will discuss whether mental well-being declines with age. I will review and discuss the evidence that leads to the conclusion of whether there is a deteriorating state of well-being as one ages, or a positive effect of aging – and I will investigate the causes. Research from journal articles and major reports will be investigated to come to the conclusion. While there is a considerable amount of research from which to form a discussion on the topic, much work still needs to be done to say a definitive answer to the ultimate well-being of the aged and whether that welfare has deteriorated over time.

Happiness is often a temporary state of well-being, but overall happiness can persist. “Longitudinal findings suggest that mental well-being retains stability as people age,” (Chappel, 2007). The text from which this was quoted cited several sources that agreed mental well-being is not sacrificed in the aging process. These studies factored in tests that asked people about how they feel now compared to past years. However, the idea that happiness deteriorates as one ages persists in society. This is believed to be caused by assumptions about decreased health, income and social networks. But those who studied older people found that even the elderly believe that this is false, (Chappel, 2007). While people believed that they would be less happy in the future than what they were in the past, it was concluded that when they actually experienced that future, they were not less happy than they were in the past.

But an article in the Huffington Post takes happiness and aging one step further and says people may actually be happier when they are older. According to research from Laura Carstensen, who conducted her studies in the 1990s, happiness is perceived in a different way, depending on which age to which one belongs. She says she hasn’t heard many myths as big as the fact that older people are unhappy and lonely. “I’ve spent the last thirty years investigating the psychology of aging, and my research consistently shows that, in terms of emotion, the best years come late in life,” (Ollivier, 2012). She bases this information on the fact that older people have fewer cases of anxiety, substance abuse and depression than younger people. There are fewer negative emotions associated with older people, and they are better able to handle any that might come their way. Whereas when younger people, in their 20s and 30s, experience a negative emotion they linger for an extensive period of time. Carstensen said that scientists are shocked when they find that older people are happier.

Carstensen’s research assistant was working with her while he was in school. His name is Derek Isaacowitz and he has since become the director and professor of psychology of the Lifespan emotional Development lab at Northeastern University. In his research, he studies people’s eye movement when they were observing disturbing images. Then he rates their emotions with a mood dial. He conducts his research in the hopes of discovering why older people manage their negative emotions better than young people, while reporting that they have higher levels of happiness than their young counterparts. One might think that a person who looks at the most upsetting portion of the image is going to feel more upset than someone who looks at a portion that is less upsetting. However, the reaction varies depending on the age.  One such image was of a cow being beheaded. “Older people do tend to look less overall at the most upsetting part of the stimuli we put on computers – and that does relate to the reported level of happiness for some of the subjects. Whereas for the younger subjects, generally, we find that the more they’re looking at upsetting material, the better they end up feeling,” (Ollivier, 2012). This could be interpreted as such: when young people are looking at the terrible image, they are developing a story in their heads that will allow them to understand what is happening better, and in doing so they are finding a way that is not so upsetting to them. On the other end of the spectrum, older people are limiting their exposure to the image, and to the bad feelings associated with it, by looking away. This could be an indication that as people get older, they begin to take things less as being such a big deal, as they are better able to turn the other cheek.

When thinking about this in a little more detail, and in taking examples that could be easily applied to real-life, we can analyze the behavior of a teenager to that of an adult. I think it could be treated as common knowledge the fact that many teenagers take what seem to be minor situation and they overdramatize them. For example, a breakup with a boyfriend could be treated as the most devastating event in a young girl or boy’s life, and they might say something like, “I’m never going to be happy again.” However, an adult might experience a break-up quite differently, because they might have gone through the experience many times. They know from experience that they will eventually get over the break up and move on with their lives. This is because they have done just that in the past. The devastation caused by breaking up slowly withers away and the person eventually feels better and are able to date again. For many teenagers, the emotion is new to them and they don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Applying this example to the rest of life, adults could be better at getting over the both the little things and big things that disturb them in their everyday life, such as a person who swerves in front of them through traffic. While an adult might think that this is annoying, they will have had that done to them many times and they will be better equipped to get over the negative emotion associated with being cut off.

Isaacowitz doesn’t attribute the difference in the emotional reaction to negative imagery to the “emotional wherewithal of a generation bred on shows like “Fear Factor’ and more on ‘different regulatory strategies’ between the two age groups,” (Ollivier, 2012). He admits that the reason why the reactions differ is open to debate, but he said people’s views about life change over time and these are manifested in how people “literally” view things. He says people are able to look at many different things and people who are older don’t necessarily close their eyes to the things they don’t like. People who are older do look at bad occurrences, but they just don’t pay as much attention. Young people might also be looking at the material for too long. Older people are better able to tell when something has been looked at or thought about for too long. While it could be argued that if one refuses to look at something simply because one doesn’t like it, then they could be denying themselves the ability to make that negative thing into a positive. They could suffer from an inability to fix something when they actually have the ability to do so. Ignoring something won’t make it go away in actuality, it will only go away for the person who is ignoring it. However, less exposure to something can be a healthy alternative to becoming obsessed by it. “The notion that less can be good certainly sinks in with age, when we’re more interested in shedding baggage than acquiring it,” (Ollivier, 2012). As we age, people tend to live more in the moment and have less of a concern for events that might have an impact on our social status, as they did when we were youth.

The Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation says that people tend to become more happy as they get older, but not when they are too old. The journal claims that people are happiest when they are in their retirement and they are more unhappy while in their geriatric age. According to the research, stages of happiness aren’t as cut and dry as being a steady progression, as there are various stages of happiness that are non-linear. The research debunks what is called a U-shaped pattern that forms in a person’s life. “The U-shape of happiness myth goes something like this: we were happy in our youth, became more miserable in our mid-40s, only to have happiness return in our late-50s. We then confront an inevitable happiness decline as our health fails in our late-70s and beyond,” (Age, 2012). While there has been research in the past that has supported this U-shaped theory, this theory assumed that factors that are inclusive in most people’s lives, including income, education, health and marital status remained to be consistent throughout a person’s lifetime. Instead of following a person over the years to see how their happiness fluctuated, researchers looked at a variety of groups of subjects in various states of life and they assumed, inappropriately, that they all shared common characteristics. But the new research has uncovered what the old research failed to do. The new research model took a hard look at the U-shaped happiness theory and investigated how the happiness levels changed in 60,000 people in Germany, Britain and in Australia over several years. The research included an account for limitations in statistics, which included character traits. Researchers deemed this to be important because of the random nature of the last study, which didn’t factor in characteristics of the test subjects. The researchers determined that people who are generally happier and busier in their lives during the middle-aged years would be less likely to participate in the study. However, happier and healthier older people would have more time to participate in the study. This would help lead to the upswing on the U-shape. The people who were old and too sick to respond to the survey weren’t included, and this skewed the results of the survey. There is also the idea there could be increased honesty when a person is older. For example, “Germans who were surveyed ten years in a row were significantly less happy than Germans interviewed at the beginning and end of the same period,” (Age, 2012). Researchers found that the more that a German person spoke, the more they became unhappy. This means that the person became more honest about their feelings as they continued the conversation and the façade that they put on earlier began to fade away. This evidence was also compiled among the subject in Britain, but not to a degree as significant as those who were from Germany. Australia was the lone country in the survey in which the subjects didn’t have a tendency to have less happiness as they continued to speak. The research corrected what those who were surveying called less honest reporting. They determined that Australia has the happiest people, while Britain’s people are second happiest and the Germans are the most unhappy. The chart for each followed roughly the same pattern. All groups were around a “seven” on the happy scale from age 18 through to their late 30s, but then spiked steadily to about 7.3 from their early 40s to their late sixties, at which time the happiness scale fell significantly. These findings are more in line with what has been expressed with psychological literature about the subject. Despite what the original U-scale indicated, people actually become happier as they enter the middle part of their lives.

The potential for the studies to be inaccurate is profound, but perhaps one of the most interesting questions is referenced by Adam Gorlick of the Stanford News: “are American seniors who say they’re happy simply part of an era that predisposed them to good cheer? Or do most people – whether born and raised in boom times or busts – have it within themselves to reach their golden years with a  smile?,” (Gorlick, 2010). This questions come in the light of an era where there will be more people who are over 60 than those who are younger than 15. This will generate some fear among those who are aging and that concern is generally centered around the fact that there is a large number of people who are aging, but not many people are around to care for those people. This could be a reason to become depressed, but this same population has also been indicated by research to be more happy.
In her research, Laura Carstensen tracked an estimated 180 Americans aged between 18 and 94. As the research went on, some of the participants died, and others moved out of the age group in which they were being studied. The subjects carried pagers and they were required to respond to several questions when the pager buzzed. This happened one week every five years. The quizzes that they filled out were meant to chart their level of happiness, as well as the level of satisfaction they felt and how comfortable they were. The study was published online in the journal Psychology and Aging. Previous research has provided a link between growing old and being happy, but this study was the first to track people over an extensive period of time, while examining how they changed. This type of research was done in order to answer questions that were asked again and again by the social scientists who helped execute the study. The questions were to do with whether the current senior citizens are predisposed to have good cheer because of the era in which they grew up. The study, which was able to track different generations into the retirement age, found that there was no correlation with good-cheer seniors and the time in which they grew up. “Over the years, the older subjects reported having fewer negative emotions and more positive ones compared with their younger days. But even with the good outweighing the bad, older people were inclined to report a mix of positive and negative emotions more often than younger test subjects,” (Gorlick, 2010). Cartensen said that people are more aware of mortality as they get older. Because of this, they realize that life is delicate and it will end. That realizations, Carstensen said, is a sign that they are emotionally strong. She said older people often put greater emphasis on things that are important to them when time is limited. Teenagers and young adults become more frustrated, anxious and disappointed over difficulties such as test scores, finding a soul mate, career goals, and older people usually have peace with what they have done in life and all of their failures and accomplishments. As a result, they aren’t as undecided and they aren’t so stressed about the various components of life. As Gorlick points out, “So what, then, do we make of the ‘grumpy old man’ stereotype?” But Carstensen says, “Most of the grumpy old men out there are grumpy young men who grew old. Aging isn’t going to turn someone grumpy into someone who’s happy-go-lucky. But most people will gradually feel better as they grow older,” (Gorlick, 2010).

But can happiness be as black and white as the aforementioned researchers suggest? Research out of Princeton University indicates that happiness can lead to better coping abilities, lower mortality and lower morbidity, and it is particularly important because of these facts to be happier as one is older. The research says that the findings depend on the type of happiness that is being considered. Happiness is a complex emotion that isn’t as clear-cut as some researchers might like to consider. The complexity of the emotion is determined by balancing several factors: “In later life, adults may experience slightly less positive affect than younger individuals, but that is accompanied by a decline in negative emotions, especially the higher arousal emotions such as anger and fear,” (Collins, 2008). This means that because of a decline in the negative emotions, adults could be better at controlling their emotions, which is in line with what Isaacowitz was saying. However, Issacowitz emphasized that older people don’t concentrate as much as younger people on the negative imagery. This could be because of better self-control, or it could be because of a lack of obsession. According to Princeton, depression and negative affects decline with age in most people, and the happiness increases, which is consistent with the aforementioned surveys. The Princeton research also factors into happiness at an older age to whether or not the person has high cognitive capabilities, if they are physically active, social and whether they have adequate financial resources. Happiness among the older generation also depends on the intelligence level and with whether or not they are extraverted. Marital status and the size of their social network are also important. But in order to maintain or acquire happiness at an old age, one should have a “flow” in their life. “Flow is an intrinsically rewarding or optimal state that results from intense engagement with daily activities. Because the ability to be highly engaged in daily activities is characteristic of successful aging, the capacity and opportunity to experience flow may increase positive affect and life satisfaction and protect against negative affect in late adulthood,” (Collins, 2008).

It is interesting to note in my observation that the increase in happiness among the people in the retired age could be due to the fact that they are no longer working and they are not yet experiencing poor health, in most cases. It wasn’t factored in during any of the studies whether people were working. While I haven’t completed a scientific study, it should be noted that the happiest people I know are those who do not work. Whether they are retired or otherwise, those who are not working but who have the financial means by which to support themselves are far happier than those who are working, particularly if it is a job to which they have to commute as opposed to working from home as a self-employed individual. I see this as a common denominator among people who are happy. We can note that children aren’t responsible for working, and they are deemed to be generally happy. Then, when a person is retired, they are deemed to be happy once again. What happened in between? For the normal person, work happened. Happiness could be totally unrelated to the age that a person is at, and it could have everything to do with freedom. People who are free are generally happy in life. For a fully accurate survey of the occurrence of happiness on the population, there should be included in the study people who aren’t working. Researchers could be interested to know that those who had retired in their 50s, for example, were more likely to be happy than other 50-year-olds in the category.

It is interesting to note that because a larger portion of the population is older, due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, society is gradually shifting into a more happy frame of mind. The results of this isn’t yet known and is out of the scope of this essay. But if what the studies are saying is right, then there could be many benefits to a society being more happy. On the other hand, people could become more apathetic, as that is also a side effect of getting older and caring less about negative things, as the Isaacowitz research suggests. Overall, I believe there are too many variances to make a solid call on whether people are happier in retirement because of their life experiences, or if it is because they don’t have to stress about work. In order to see whether retirement is in fact the key to happiness, a scientific study that factors in the happiness of people who don’t have to work should be conducted.

Works Cited
Age and Happiness: Debunking the Myth of Middle-Aged Blues.” (2012, June 7). The

Collins, A.L. et al. (2008). “Flow and Happiness in Later Life: An Investigation into the Role of
Daily and Weekly Flow Experiences.” Princeton University.

Gorlick, Adam. (2010, Oct. 27). “Stanford Study Shows getting Older Leads to Emotional 
Stability, Happiness.” Stanford News.

N. Chappell et al. (2007). Chapter 8: Mental Well-Being and Mental Disorder. Aging in 
Contemporary Canada. 2nd Edition. pages 191-218. Prentice Hall, Toronto.

Ollivier, D. (2012, Aug. 3). “Aging and Happiness: Why People May Be Happier as they Age.”
Huffington Post.


Sample by My Essay Writer

In his essay, “The Question Concerning Technology,” Heidegger states that the current conception of technology, according to which it is a means and human activity, can be called the instrumental and anthropological conception of technology. Explain why this definition of technology cannot represent the essence of technology.

Martin Heidegger makes it clear in his essay, “The Question Concerning Technology,” that the true essence of technology is much deeper than what people perceive on the surface. It isn’t in the machinery of technology that guides its function, but the way of thinking that it creates. While Heidegger’s definition that refers to technology as being instrumental and anthropological is correct as a definition, it only scratches the surface of what he describes as a deeper meaning, because the essence of the way in which it sculpts society is much deeper.

The traditional definition of technology doesn’t factor into the cause, which is the essence of technology. But even deeper than the cause of technology is the idea of being responsible for something, which is at the centre of cause and therefore reaches the center of instrumentality. Being responsible for something means bringing it into presence or creating something into being. By revealing something, a person is creating a way in which to produce truth. As the reader can already see, this reaches much further than the simple definition of technology and how it relates to the instrumental and anthropological conception of technology, and digs deeper into the essence. This is where Heidegger digs deeper into technology’s essence.

Though truth is the essence of technology, it is not always possible to bring something out of concealment. For example, modern technology cannot always bring something forth out of concealment. Often, modern technology challenges to bring forth something into existence. Modern technology is brought forward as a result of a challenge.

He has a much more critical take on modern technology than that which was used historically. For example, he states that peasant farming is that of respect, because the farmers tend the land, cultivating it and living with its patterns. Modern technology, however, often destroys the land and whatever stands in mankind’s way of producing more profits from the land, or even from people who may be enslaved in the process of creating technology. In essence, he argues that man is essentially a product of technology – that humans serve technology and therefore people are resources to their own demise.

“Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology,” (Heidegger, 1)

The very essence of technology is its grasp on mankind to consistently try to improve upon itself, but all that drive is doing is pushing people further into a world of technology that cannot be sustained.  But what Heidegger doesn’t consider is the ability of mankind to survive. He underestimates people’s ability to stop what they are doing for the purpose of survival.

Take, for example, the motor vehicle. This is just one creation that has controlled the course of mankind and has produced people as the resource in which to preserve its production. It has enslaved people in a capitalist culture where they are essentially chained to a production line for the sole purpose of creating more and more vehicles. But it goes much further than that. Mankind has taken it upon themselves to fight wars over oil and many people have died. Take the recent war in Iraq, where many innocent people were killed to foster control of oil. However, oil production and use has brought the potential for an even bigger death toll if humans are unable to stop their obsession and control the substance’s effect on the environment. Heidegger would assume in his definition that humans would create their own demise, but it can be argued with convincing results that mankind will be the ones who develop technology that can eliminate the need for oil in motor vehicles. Already, trucks and cars that run on electricity have been produced and this is one way in which people won’t become a resource to technology, but the agent in which technology is improved. This is the type of deeper meaning to which Heidegger refers.

Heidegger does refer to this “survival” aspect briefly in his essay when he says, “The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control,” (Heidegger, 2). But he states the essence of technology will control mankind and turn it into a resource for its evolution because people use the world only as a resource and this way of thinking consumes the minds of mankind. This way of thinking confines people to defining truth as scientific knowledge, which limits people, blocking them from essence of technology. He does confer that scientific knowledge does have validity when arguing for truth, but it doesn’t get to the true essence of what something, in this case technology, really is. He contends that truths are revealed poetically, aesthetically and religiously as well as scientifically.

Heidegger goes on to relate the essence of technology as being that which is interpreted by the individual. Technology can convey a different meaning to each person. Take, for example, the creation of email. One person might see it as being a hindrance because it eliminates one’s ability to communicate with whom they want to be in contact with because they are unable to work the email, or read that which is sent to them. Another person could see the technology as being profoundly useful because it makes communicating with people much more quick and efficient. Another person could look at email and think of all the ways in which they could make money – by placing ads at the side of the email, for example. Whatever way a person interprets the technology, it is still an interpretation of how it relates to truth, which is the essence of technology. This is the essence for which Heidegger is speaking. Technology breeds creation and this creation is the revelation of truth.

His theory reflects closely with Marshall McLuhan’s “The medium is the message,” which describes that the form by which the message is communicated dictates how the message is received. In Heidegger’s case, it could be said that “The technology is the truth.” In other words, the effect technology has on a society’s way of thinking is the message, or the truth of technology’s effect on society.

In his essay, “The Question Concerning Technology,” Heidegger maintains that technology is a way (or mode) of revealing and that every bring-forth is grounded in revealing. Explain what Heidegger means when he claims that technology comes to presence in the realm where revealing and unconcealment take place, the realm where truth happens.

To answer this question, it is most important to reveal what Heidegger meant when he said “bring forth.” He is essentially referring to poeisis, or more simply stated, bringing forth into existence, or even more simply put, creating. This revealing refers to the relationship of people and the world in which they live – but it goes further than that, because it also refers to the way in which people live.

Take for example the way in which people live today. Many people are consumed by the Internet and television. These two mediums control much of what people do each day. The amount of time people spend with these activities is one of the truths that Heidegger describes. The truth for people today is that mankind enjoys wasting a lot of their time in front of screens. This truth can bring out deeper meaning, and it is all linked to Heidegger’s claim that the truth behind technology is not what it is in the material sense, but in the way in which it brings out the essence.

One truth can lead to another. For example, the truth that is revealed through the expression of human desire for computers and televisions has crafted another truth, which is consumerism. The many people sitting around watching TV or a computer are confronted by advertisements, which lead them to make purchases and continue the trend of consumerism, all while turning the wheel of the capitalist system, which is the ultimate truth of Western society at this point in time.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the existence of the first man. He is standing alone in a forest and is faced with the simple needs for survival. What is the truth in this instance? The man desires food, so he goes off on his search for food and he finds berries. At this point there is no technology to reveal a separate truth. Now the man sees a deer. He cannot catch the deer, so he grabs a stick and fashions it into a throwing spear. And here is the first piece of technology that the man comes across. After throwing the spear and killing the deer, the man can taste that the meat is delicious. Now, when he is hungry, he will use his technology to kill a dear. So his truth is revealed through the technology and so he now desires deer. But was his truth already revealed prior to crafting the spear? Without it, he would not have known that he enjoys the taste of venison. The spear allowed him to reveal his desire to consume the animal.

“Challenging happens in that the energy concealed in nature is unlocked, what is unlocked is transformed, what is transformed is stored up, what is stored up is, in turn, distributed, and what is distributed is switched about ever anew. Unlocking transforming, storing, distributin, and switching about are ways of revealing,” (Heidegger, 7)

What he means here is that the process by which people create technology reveals what they want, or what their nature is. But is the truth revealed or is an addiction created? This is not addressed by Heidegger. For example, while millions of people are watching television or are on their computers at any given time, is their true desire revealed, or are they addicted to the technology? Surely some people thoroughly enjoy the two mediums, but others might be addicted. Video games are certainly addicting, and it can cause people to become depressed. Because a person gambles does not mean it’s an activity in which they enjoy. In fact, many people kill themselves to become free from the devastating grip of gambling. The aforementioned points prove where Heidegger falls short. He presumes that whatever technology a person uses is their truth. But just because a person can, does not mean a person wants to.

Heidegger sees that there is an issue with the current human “progress,” which calculates itself by its achievements, despite how much they might impact society. When the essay was first published, in 1954, the consumerist culture was just beginning the manifest itself in society. Capitalism was drawing closer to its dominance of virtually every corner of Earth. It was in this time when little regard was given for the environment and its many delicacies. This is the time when Heidegger was correct in saying that people are feeding their egotistical need to claim their dominance by creating to the point where it is a detriment to the world. Could Heidegger have predicted the devastating effects factories were having on the ozone layer?

It wasn’t until several decades later that scientists began creating technology with the environment in mind. Now, there are countless products that consider the harmful effects on nature. And some technologies are eliminating many of these unhealthy byproducts, such as greenhouse gases. In the previous question, the example of electric cars was given to explain mankind’s effort to mitigate the harmful effects of products such as motor vehicles, which produce mass amounts of fumes that pollute the air.

The creation of technology might not only reveal people’s truths, it also changes us and this is a scary proposition due to the unpredictable outcomes of any given piece of technology. But there isn’t really a difference between revealing people’s truths and  the changes that manifest themselves in who people are. After all, people are changed based on their desires and their desires are their truths. A person may not have known that all they want to do is sit around and play video games all day, but that is what they will do if given the opportunity, and that might be the activity that completes them as a person and creates their truth.

“Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the real of revealing, i.e., of truth,” (Heidegger, 5)

People’s consistent desire to exploit their reality by creating more and more technology, in itself reveals the truth about mankind. It might not be in the products that humans create, often tp to the detriment of nature, but it is in the desire of creating these technologies that the truth is revealed. By pushing themselves the boundaries of greed, desire and world dominance – through their desire to create technology – people are showing their true colours, their essence. Technology is so powerful that it doesn’t need to be created to have its true essence revealed, because its true nature is shown by revealing human nature. Technology, in its very core, is human nature. And what more is human nature than the way in which we live?

?            In his essay, “The Question Concerning Technology,” Heidegger names the demanding claim which gathers man to order the self-revealing as standing-reserve “enframing.” Explain why enframing is the essence of modern technology.

Enframing, as Heidegger describes, is a way to understand being and also a way of revealing human nature. He states that technology allows mankind to reveal what they are. But he also states that mankind learns about who they are too late. The effects of any given piece of technology on society is difficult to predict. But he claims that even the question about how mankind is to relate to the technology always comes too late. People don’t decide quickly enough their stance on any given piece of technology, he states. However, technology has been given its limitations and considerations for the effects of technology are widespread.

Take, for example, human cloning, which was outlawed by the United Nations General Asssembly in 2005. The UN stated that human cloning violates human dignity. While it is unknown whether human cloning would be to the detriment of society, it is an example of technology being halted because of mankind’s stance on technology.

As another example, stem cell research, which was initially unfunded by the George W. Bush administration for eight years, was then lifted and then funded by the Barack Obama administration in 2009. This shows there is some discussion prior to lunging into a decision about using or attempting to develop a particular piece of technology.

Granted, examples such as these may not have been the case in Heidegger’s time. And perhaps he didn’t have enough faith that humanity would evolve and put certain limitations on advancements in technology. But one can easily agree that many initiatives don’t consider the effects on nature and on humanity.

Heidegger’s claim that people question how technology will affect people comes too late is challenging to quantify. After all, if Heidegger is referring to a piece of technology, then it must have been invented. He doesn’t have an account of the technology that hasn’t been implemented. There could be many inventions that were thrown aside because they could have had too much of a negative effect on society. But for the most part, this isn’t likely true, and it is largely because the majority of the people who are affected by the technology have no stake in its existence. For example, a person who invents a violent video game does nothing but reap the financial benefit of its creation, while the masses play the video game and a violent behavior seeps into society. Some of these people who played the video game could eventually end up in jail and some of the people who come into contact with the gamer could end up being victimize. So while the effect on society is widespread, the creator of the technology doesn’t likely have any participation in the damaging outcomes, so they would not likely put a lot of consideration in the damaging effects. But even given damaging effect, Heidegger claims there is a purpose for enframing with all types of technology.

“Enframing comes to pass for its part in the granting that lets man endure – as yet unexperienced, but perhaps more experienced in the future – that he may be the one who is needed and used for the safekeeping of the coming to presence of truth,” (Heidegger, 17).

This passage explains that without experiencing technology, mankind cannot know its effects and not go through the process of discovery. But it is ultimately the greed of people that has kept many of the damaging technological advancements in place even after they have been experienced and seen to be damaging. Take, for example, the atom bomb. Because governments have an overwhelming desire for power, they often use technology to the detriment of others and to nature itself. Money is another motivator. Products such as violent video games are clearly to the detriment of society, yet manufacturers continually release games that feature people murdering each other in increasingly brutal ways.

Whether good or bad, technology still helps mankind reveal who they are through enframing, and this is the point that Heidegger was trying to communicate. Without technology, mankind would still be concerned with only the basics of survival. But it is people’s curiosity that has led them to create technology that will help them discover. The first man who had just made his spear to kill a deer is now looking at the stars and wondering what is out there. So he creates a telescope. He then wonders where the edge of the Earth is, so he begins to walk and makes himself shoes. It is nature and the world, coupled with human curiosity that leads man to create items that will allow him to satisfy that curiosity. And it is the world that lures man and provides him with resources from which to make his tools that create more technology and then reveals more of what man is, or enframing.

Heidegger doesn’t necessary see the human relationship with the world as being destructive, but he does caution that without thinking ahead about the effects of enframing with the world, mankind can become a resource to technology, which could lead to mankind’s destruction. He states that a reorientation is needed with the world in order for enframing to successfully proceed. This reorientation would require mankind to think about the effects of technology before the piece of technology enframes society. Any other way would take away from the possibility of making advancements in other areas of life, such as spirituality.

He also points out that humans could become a standing-reserve if they continue on their current path of enframing. This makes people a resource to technology. Technology needs people for its survival. This means that mankind isn’t necessarily a good, but instead, it is good for something. For example, the newspaper reporter is at the mercy of the paper press, which distributes copies of newspapers to the readership. As another example, the lumberjack is at the mercy of the forestry industry. Put into other words, people are being turned into slaves for the purpose of serving the technology turbine.

“The coming to presence of technology threatens revealing, threatens it with the possibility that all revealing will be consumed in ordering and that everything will present itself only in the unconcealedness of standing-reserve,” (Heidegger, 18).

Taken as a whole, technology has taken complete control over humanity, turning it into a product. While individual technology items may be considered before implementation by a wide audience, the overall power of technology allows very few people in this world to be free from the harmful effects of technology. When most of the world works from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., technology is planning its next move. And it is usually the people working those 8 hours who are fueling the turbine and letting the wheel spin some more.


Sample by My Essay Writer

Introduction to Problem 
As the second-leading cause of deaths related to cancer in men throughout the United States, approximately 192,000 men are given the news that they have prostate cancer every year. Of those, approximately 27,000 die from the disease, (What is, 2009). “Prostate cancer is the most common cancer, other than non-melanoma skin cancer,” (Thomas, 2012). The prostate is a gland in the reproductive system of men. The prostate is considered to be an exocrine gland and it is located immediately underneath the bladder, and just in front of the rectum. Exocrine glands are ones that have a secretion that goes outside of the body. Examples of these also include the sweat gland. The prostate gland is estimated to be the size of a walnut and this has the potential to develop serious cancers, particularly among men with a high level of testosterone. Various types of cells make up a prostate gland. However, almost all of the cancers relating to prostate are located in the gland cell. The technical term for prostate cancer is adenocarcinoma. Many of these cancers have the ability to grow rapidly, but it is most often associated with slow growth. Scientists have shown that older men, and occasionally those who are younger, who died of another disease, also had prostate cancer, but it didn’t lead to their death and wasn’t a problem during their lives, (What is, 2009).

Approximately 81 per cent of men will catch prostate cancer in its early stages of development. While the cancer grows at a relatively slow speed, most of the men who catch it early will choose a very aggressive treatment option. They will ask that the prostate be removed, or they will undergo radiation treatments that could make them incontinent, impotent or both. In approximately 10 per cent of cases, the man will refuse treatment, and this is often against the opinion of the doctor and family members. The man could continue to suffer severe pain due to the presence of the cancer, though this isn’t enough of a hindrance for many people. A “watchful waiting” strategy would mean that doctors simply treat for the pain that is caused by not eliminating the cancer, (Parker-Pope, 2012).

Many doctors hypothesize that the cancer starts from extremely small changes in the shape and size of the cells of the prostate gland. A protein that is produced in the cells, which is called a prostate-specific antigen, escapes into the bloodstream, sometimes resulting in the spread of the cancer. The PSA level can be monitored by checking the man’s blood. A high level of PSA can indicate that there is prostate cancer, or another kind of condition with the prostate present. The levels can also help doctors to determine the stage that the cancer is in, which will help them determine the best treatment. The treatment that is chosen, depends on the request by the patient and with the stage in which the cancer has developed, (What is, 2009).

The disease is most prevalent among men who are over age 65, and it is very rare in men who are younger than 45. As a person gets older, their risk for contracting the disease increases. Among those who contract the disease, there is a 15 per cent chance that either a brother or a father was also diagnosed. African-American men are at double the mortality rate compared to men of any other race, and they contract the disease more often than other races. Other risk factors include obesity, sexually transmitted diseases and a poor diet. One of the most challenging aspects is that there are usually no symptoms during the early stages of the disease. Typically, doctors discover men with prostate cancer during routine checkups or during a blood test.

However, there are signs that indicate prostate cancer is present. For example, the victim might urinate more often, get up at night to go pee, trouble starting urination, difficulty continuing to urinate once he starts, blood in the urine and urinating could cause pain. If the prostate cancer is in an advanced stage, there could also be bone pain that is often situated in the spine, pelvis or ribs. The cancer can also be the catalyst to tumors showing up in other area of the body.

The treatment for the disease is usually radiation or surgery to take the prostate gland out. Drugs can also be used to attempt to reduce the levels of testosterone, which causes the prostate tumors to develop, are used after radiation or surgery. However, these methods aren’t always effective, and when they aren’t there is a more recent development that could change the survival rate of men suffering from prostate cancer.

Like many practices, this treatment does have its controversies. These include issues around the cost. While the numbers haven’t been officially tallied this drug is expected to be extremely expensive. Early estimates peg the drug at costing about $93,000. However, the makers said the drug’s price is comparable to that of other drugs that help fight cancer, when considering the cost for each extra month of life. The debate about whether the price is justified by the approximately four months of extended life is up for debate. There is the Provenge vaccine, but there are problems around the drug because there isn’t enough of it to go around. Dendreon, the manufacturer, can’t produce enough of the product to fill all the orders. The price is also extremely high, which will cause many people to be left out of the purchase. Medicare and other insurers have contemplated whether or not to cover the drug. But there are solutions to these concerns.

Proposed Solution
Before introducing the solutions, it is important to establish the foundation in which the Provenge vaccine was developed. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine Dendreon Corporation’s Provenge. This vaccine isn’t considered a definitive cure, but men who have limited treatment options have hope that it will work. A study showed that men who receive the Provenge live about four months longer than those who don’t receive it – 26 months compared to 22 months, (What is, 2009).

Doctors hypothesize that the vaccine can destroy the advanced prostate cancers and the healthy tissue is left unharmed. When the vaccine is injected into the blood, rather than into the tumor itself, the body’s immune system didn’t go into overdrive, which is what it was doing when the vaccine was injected directly into the tumor. The vaccine can work by triggering the body’s immune system to become familiar with antigens and to recognize them. These are distinctive proteins located on the surface of cells. It should be noted that only some men with prostate cancer will benefit from this treatment.

A New York Times article describes the test that developed the vaccine, where thousands of snippets of genetic codes were taken out of healthy prostates and then they were inserted into a virus. The virus was then injected into a mouse that had prostate cancer. Before each dose a prostate cancer patients white blood cells were taken and they were combined with a protein to create a dose of sipeuleucel-T. The mouse produced an array of antibodies that were keyed up to recognise a different antigen that is at the surface of the prostate cancer cell. “Each dose of sipuleucel-T contains autologous mononuclear cells, including antigen presenting cells, that were activated ex vivo via culture with a recombinant fusion protein consisting of prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) linked to granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), an immune cell activator,” (Pollack, 2010). Having many proteins in the immunogenic viruses led scientists to be able to better understand the immune system. When injected into the mice, its body suspected that it was being invaded by the virus, in which case it attacked and destroyed the cells, or prevented the onset of cancer cells. In other words, the immune system was able to identify the menacing cells before they had a chance to become cancer cells. This was all due to the fact that the antigen was generated. When applied to humans, it is suspected that this will result in decreased size and number of cancer sites and an increase in the time it takes for cancer cells to develop. This could also help increase the survival time or rate of the patient.

This practice, while seemingly complicated, is really only about removing a patient’s white blood cells before sending them away to a lab and having them activated by being exposed to a protein that is evident in prostate cancer cells. These cells are returned to the patient approximately three days later by a process that is very similar to a blood transfusion. Each patient is required to have this done three times, with about two weeks of time left between each of the doses. Those who receive this treatment have reported only a few side effects, which included chills, fever, fatigue, headache, joint aches,
nausea and back pain. These side effects generally disappeared in a few days, (Derbyshire, 2011).

The treatment is a solution to those who are in the advanced stages of prostate cancer. The approach essentially trains the body to target the cancer cells before they have a chance to form into a tumor. The treatment is only available to those whose prostate is at the metastatic level. This means that the cancer has taken over the lymph nodes, which is in addition to their presence in the prostate gland. The bone can also become infected with the disease. Also, only those who have had their prostate cancer grow, even after other forms of treatment, will be allowed to use the drug, (Glode, 2012).

More specifically, patients whose cancer is not responding to hormone therapy are allowed to use the drug. Also, when a bone scan or CT scan proves that there is a spread of the disease to the lymph nodes or bones, excluding the lungs, liver and brain, can receive the drug. The patients who have brain, liver or lung cancer have a much lower survival rate, and this is why preference is given to those who don’t have the cancer cells spreading to those areas. There also needs to be little or no pain that is related to the cancer. The liver, kidneys and bone marrow also need to be fully functioning. Finally, those who have a history of autoimmune disease or serious lung or heart disease are not allowed to receive the treatment, (Glode, 2012).

Medicare agreed to cover the drug last year, and private insurers also came on board. However, doctors were initially upset over what they called a lengthy wait for reimbursement. But there may be a wait before the controversy becomes too heated. Dendeon, which is the company that manufactures Provenge, doesn’t yet have the capacity to produce enough to fill every order. While the company is pursuing additional capacity resources, there is no timeline given to the full application of the drug.

Works Cited
A. Parker-Pope F.D.A approves ‘vaccine’ to fight prostate cancer. The New York Times. (2010, April 29).

D. Derbyshire. The prostate cancer vaccine that targets tumours with and ’80 per cent success rate.’ Daily Main Online. (2011, June 20).

D. Thomas. Prostate cancer vaccine provenge: is it really worth it?  University of Texas. (2012, Jan. 27).

M. Glode Provenge: A Customized Treatment for Advanced-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients.University of Colorado Hospital. (2012)

T. Parker-Pope. Choosing ‘watchful waiting’ for prostate cancer. New York Times. (2012, July 23).
What is Prostate Cancer? What Causes Prostate Cancer? Medical News Today. (2009, May 14).


Sample by My Essay Writer

In an attempt to strengthen the ability to deliver primary health care services in Canada 24 hours per day and seven days per week, specific outcomes need to be met. These will be the deciding factor in ensure that access to public health, which is so often touted in Canada, will be carried out. In deciding what strategies to use to establish a universal health care system, four components of the LEADS Framework should be used. In this essay, I will detail those components in an effort to establish a health care model that accommodates everyone on a continual basis. The LEADS Framework is an important tool in deciding the look of the ideal system.

Before detailing the four components, it is important to establish to the reader what the LEADS Framework is. In representing the key abilities, skills and knowledge required for an ideal health care system, the LEADS Framework lays out the foundation for those three skills. It isn’t only in the health care system that these can be utilized; it is in most levels of any organization. The framework focuses on aligning the competency frameworks in a way that can accommodate the leadership strategies in the Canadian health sector and in various other organizations. The framework has utilized the beliefs of various literatures on the fundamentals of leadership and what is needed from leadership in order to have an effective health care system that can increase the capacity and access to health care in Canada. It should be noted that while the LEADS Framework offers top leadership advice, it isn’t the only model. There are also comparable models used in other areas of the world that are also effective. However, this framework is a valuable tool in a focused effort to create the type of system that ensures the health care needs of the general public are being met.\

Develop Coalition
In executing an efficient primary health care service, it is important to lead the staff. This can be done by developing coalition. In the development of coalition, it is important to build partnerships and networks within the organization, in an effort to find results. This method provides the opportunity to create connections, share a meaningful working environment and to build trust. This trust is built toward both the group and to the individuals as well. In developing coalition, it is important to show a commitment to the patients and the services that are provided. The patients are the ones who provide the framework on which the staff can collaborate, co-operate and to develop coalitions in diverse perspectives and groups that are targeted at learning to improve the services.

The mobility of knowledge is another important component because it uses various methods to gather information, which helps the staff understand the needs of the patients, and this could provide an indication of the volume, and any alterations to staffing that may be needed to accommodate many patients on a continual basis. The open exchange of information is vital in the team atmosphere so that everyone is on the same page. The information can be used to provide a clear picture of what action needs to be taken in the workplace. Also, through developing a precise framework by which to navigate the socio-political environments, it is important to note the importance of the ability of the staff to negotiate their way through conflicts, which can often arise between patients and the staff.

Lead Self
In finding a way to deliver the best possible service to the public, it is also important to know how to lead one’s self so that all the appropriate outcomes are being met in establishing  primary care on a continuous basis. Each person in the staff needs to be aware of themselves so that their conduct and how it relates to co-workers and patients are conducive to an environment where an efficient practice can be carried out. Most people come with much baggage, and that baggage should not interfere with the job. If it does, providing primary care on a continual basis could become a problem. In order to perform at a high capacity, people should be aware of the assumptions they have about others, their values, strengths, principles and limitations. This will help them to understand how they relate to others and how they relate to the tasks that are needed from them. Personal belief systemsshould not interfere with executing the job properly. Furthermore, when someone understands their limitations, they are better able to understand when it is necessary to draw on others on the team to execute the task. Without that integration and a shared goal, providing service in an efficient manner becomes exceedingly difficult. For the best service to be executed, each member of staff needs to be well aware of their limitations and strengths, as only an efficient system will provide for the ability to deliver the service on a continual basis, due to staffing shortages that are common throughout the industry.

But while delegating tasks to those on the team who could handle them better is important, it is also key to be able to manage one’s self. This includes taking responsibility for one’s performance at the work place. Furthermore, outside of the workplace, it is important that members of staff are taking care of their personal health. Staff members need to be functioning at a high level in order for them to contribute to the organization in a way that is useful.

Engage Others
As we have seen, it is important to engage one’s self when providing a framework for a staff that can facilitate a health centre that is able to cater to the mass public on a continual basis. But engaging others is another key in providing the best possible primary care. Fostering the development of those around needs to be done in order to provide and receive the support when trying to achieve goals. People often need encouragement to strive for more, or to continue their path on their mission to making their goals a reality.

When engaging others, it is also important to play a role in creating a healthy organization. “Healthy” should be taken to mean an organization that is fully committed to providing the best type of care possible and making it happen on a continual basis. This will help to ensure that the resources are used in order to carry out individual responsibilities.

Achieve Results
The aforementioned steps don’t mean much if the desired results of the organization aren’t achieved. Setting goals is a way to see whether the organization is on the path to meeting its outcomes. Milestones can be set and occasionally reviewed to determine whether the organization is on its way to providing continual primary care. If the milestones aren’t being achieved, then there should be changes made. What these changes are depends on what outcomes aren’t being met. For example, if patient care isn’t given on a 24-hour basis, then there could be the need to increase the productivity of each member of staff. Also, when goals and milestones are set, they encourage the staff to work hard toward achieving those goals. This inspires a vision by creating targets, and establishing a clear communication and expectations that mean something to the staff. This will help build on the goals and increase the chances of providing primary care on a continual basis.

Establishing milestones and goals should be in line with the organizations’ missions and values. In this case, the goal would be to provide the continual service. Milestones could include increasing the number of patients seen by doctors by 10 per cent per year until 100 per cent of patients are finding the care they need on a continual basis. Breaking the goal into sections will help insure that steps are being made and staff is seeing results.


Sample by My Essay Writer

Where is your times going?
What if over the next 2-5 years you could grow an asset that would give you complete freedom and let you spend your time doing what you want?

After all, aren’t you tired of spending countless hours each day working? If your life suddenly changed, and you didn’t have to wake up in the morning to go to work each day, what would you do with your time? Go traveling? Sleep in? Play with the kids? Stay inside and veg out?
If you are interested in learning more, keep reading – and see how we can help you.

Where is your money going?
If you’re like most people, the majority of your money goes to paying bills. Even if you have your expenses under control, you probably don’t have enough assets to provide yourself with enough freedom to break off the chains of work. Chances are, you are probably like most people – struggling every day just to make ends meet. But it doesn’t have to be like that.

If you could earn an additional $10,000, $50,000, or $100,000-plus per month, think of how you’d be spending your time, rather than paying those onerous bills. We’re getting closer to an answer about how you can get there, but first it is important to ask yourself:

Where is your life going?
You’re job pays the bills, but that amount of work leaves you tired at the end of the day. That’s no way to live your life. Never forget about your dreams, no matter how impossible they may seem. Most of the time, living your dreams requires you to have more freedom, more focus, more energy and more investment capital. But it you’re working all the time, trying to just keep up.

You are likely left with this choice: shrink your dreams to match your income, or increase your income to match your dreams.

Are you ready to learn how you could fund the lifestyle you’ve always dreamed? It would only take 10-15 hours each week. That’s time you could find away from your day job, to complete a task that could earn you up to 8 figures each year. That’s right, tens of millions. Sounds too good to be true, right? Wrong. Thousands have already done it, and we show you how to grow your asset.

Think about the future
Think about how much more income you would have to build assets and live your dreams if you didn’t have debt. What do these dreams look like? Do they look like freedom from stress, or is it a yacht. Both? Take your pick, because now you’ve got the money to buy what you want.

You already are doing the right thing, only at the wrong place!
You likely spend a lot of money at the grocery store each month, making purchases for items such as hand soap, detergents, other cleaning supplies, nutrition bars, supplements, vitamins and energy drinks. It is with many of the most basic items that everyone buys that you can grow your wealth.
Along with the price for the product itself, you are paying a ton in the overhead it takes just to get the items to grocery store shelves. And everyone along the way gets a cut, which drives up costs. The money that you are spending on those basic products is a part of the problem.

Get down to business and change your buying habits!
Instead of buying from many of the normal stores such as Walmart and Costco, you could buy from YOUR OWN STORE. By owning and operating your own online business, you can offer to others many of the products you buy every day. You would sell high-quality name brands that are purchased by people from throughout the world. As an added bonus to people who shop at your store, the supplier offers a 180-day money back guarantee on each product.

How to start making money
Not only can you make money by selling the items from your own store, but you will also earn a portion of what those who you encourage to open their own online stores receive. If you think that could be hard, think again.

Thousands of people have already seen the benefits of operating an online store, and they now know the kind of monetary growth that results in. They begin to realize how much they can save by making purchases from their own online stores. I just bought 80 roles of name-brand toilet paper for $10 cheaper than what I used to pay at Costco, and they were delivered to my front door. Furthermore, opening up your own store is easy. And we can show you just how easy.

A rising tide raises all ships
This business will have you accumulating business partners who become valuable contacts. As they implement their own sales centers, you will be establishing your product distribution network. Each time someone comes on board, you “duplicate” your business, and this is the best way to grow your asset.

Just 6 business partners who buy from themselves instead of from stores will result in about $4,000 for you each year. If each of those business partners teach 6 business partners of their own, you earn $54,000 per year, and the cycle continues to multiply as each subsequent business partner comes on board. It’s simple enough, and all it really takes is making the first contact with us. We will teach you how to establish your own website, and how to recruit others. It’s really that simple!

Contact us
We’d love for you to contact us. We are available to anyone either over the phone, via Skype or through email. And if you live in the Puget Sound area, let’s meet for coffee! We’ll have you on your way in no time, securing financial freedom by growing your asset.


Sample by My Essay Writer

Gun rights in America have been at the center of debate for decades, and this is because the discussion hits close to homes for so many United States residents. According to research at the University of Chicago, approximately 200 to 250 million firearms are in private circulation throughout the country, (Cook, 2009). The same research indicates that one in every four Americans owned a gun in 2009. In this essay, I will outline current gun ownership climate in America, before providing the reasons why many are encouraging stricter gun control laws. An analysis of the reasons supporting guns will then be outlined, followed by a rebuttal. Guns are an important part of the safety of Americans, but the risks outweigh the benefits. While some people benefit by owning a gun, many innocent people are killed by registered firearms. The argument that guns protect people and deter criminals from breaking the law doesn’t outweigh the negative consequences of owning a gun. The American Constitution should not be amended to reflect new laws that don’t allow firearms to the general public.

Courtesy iStock

A Slew of Gun Laws

According to the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, there are about 20,000 gun-control laws in the United States. Scholars, advocates and the media have cited this number with regularity and it is now accepted as fact. The fact that there are so many gun control laws already in existence has been used as a reason to not increase the number of gun control laws in the U.S. The 20,000 figure relating to gun control laws was even used by ex-president Ronald Reagan about 11 weeks after someone attempted to assassinate him. He said at the time, “there are today more than 20,000 gun-control laws in effect – federal, state, and local – in the United States,” (Vernick, 2002). That same number is being used today. But the gun control laws that are in place don’t necessarily deal with keeping the weapons out of the hands of the wrong people. The laws often govern how the guns are manufactured, designed and sold. Possession isn’t necessarily the reason these laws are in place. Furthermore, as Jon Vernick points out in “Twenty Thousand Gun-Control Laws?,” a team of researchers discovered only 300 gun-control laws, including the manufacturing, design and sale. Therefore, adding a few more laws that ensure the safety of Americans wouldn’t be ridiculous, and it is in fact necessary.

There is already an excess of gun laws in deciding what should be included in the laws. “For example, many local laws prohibit carrying or firing guns in public places,” (Vernick, 2002). This increases the estimates about the number of gun-control laws, along with the aforementioned inclusions relating to the manufacturing, design and sale. The illusion that there are 20,000 gun-control laws has likely deterred politicians from creating more laws, because they were under the illusion that guns were already fully regulated. But instead of investigating the number of laws that are in existence, it would be a better idea to look at the impact of the laws that are in place.

High Gun Ownership

While we have already learned that nearly a quarter of all Americans own a gun, let’s gain a deeper understanding of the scale of gun use in American. Understanding this use will shed light on the value Americans put on owning a firearm. While gun owners are a major part of the debate, those who don’t own a gun are also affected by laws that could control their use. “Recent survey data suggests that about forty per cent of males, about ten per cent of females, and about thirty-five per cent of all adults do not own any guns,” (Cook, 2009). However, the same research states that guns are becoming less common in homes. This is no surprise, as the quality of home alarm systems has increased rapidly, leading those who are concerned with their safety to find solace in the protection of companies that offer this type of security.

Those who support laws banning guns often say they lead to unnecessary violence. For example, there is a “Brady Campaign” that is aimed at passing and enforcing federal gun laws, public policies and regulations in a grassroots activism effort. The campaign aims to elect politicians that support gun laws, while increasing the awareness about violence related to gun use. “Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the dangers of guns, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that all Americans, especially children, have the right to live free from the threat of gun violence,” (Kosson, 2012). What this campaign group doesn’t consider is the many lives that are saved because of guns, not to mention the number of people who are deterred from becoming criminals because they know that the person in the house that they may rob might shoot them in self defense. Still, those pros don’t outweigh the cons.

Practicality of Gun Ownership

Some argue that not only are there practical reasons to allow someone to own guns, there is also the consideration that the American Constitution says United States residents have the right to bear arms. It is contained in the Second Amendment. The Amendment states that people are allowed to have their gun rights protected against even the threat of government to take control over their arms. As long as the Second Amendment exists, the federal government has no authority to take away the right to bear arms, as long as the person with the guns is not been restricted because of their past. The Constitution places the same amount of protection on the guns as it does on a person’s right to free speech.

Some people might say that the Second Amendment is a remnant of a time when the American culture was much different, and there shouldn’t be any weight given to the right. But change is necessary, because if the right still exists, there hasn’t been a concentrated effort from current politicians to get rid of the right. That means that the Second Amendment is still relevant today. “While most courts continue to interpret the Second Amendment as a collective right, academic scholarship is more divided,” (Cornell, 2004). For the courts to say it is a right, means that it will take a lot of effort to create gun control laws in America. It also tells me that some very intelligent people consider the Second Amendment relevant to today’s United States culture. This complicates the debate, and provides a solid argument on which opposition of gun laws stand.

The United Nations is currently looking to restrict the rights with the Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty is causing major anxiety. The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has said that the treaty will be robust and legally binding and it will have an impact on millions of people who are involved in not only armed conflict and repression, but also on the transfer of arms. This is in an attempt to prevent these arms from becoming owned by terrorists. It should be noted that the U.N. is playing a major role in this decision, despite the fact that they have recently been found guilty of providing bombs and guns to the Bashar Assad regime, a terrorist group that is slaughtering thousands of Syrians. It makes absolutely no sense to allow Iran even to be a member of the U.N., let alone to make a decision on gun rules. “It’s tempting to dismiss the treaty – and the outrageous involvement of Iran – as just another U.N. absurdity,” (Cole, 2012). The reason this is such a big deal to America is that civilian arms and ammunition is included in the definition of what the U.N. seeks to get rid of.

The U.S. and Russia eventually caused the treaty to be defeated and human rights advocates said the U.S. was responsible for the defeat. But shortly after, the Colorado slaughter put the topic back onto the agenda at the White House. However, 50 senators sent a letter addressed to Barack Obama, saying they would vote in opposition of the ratification of the treaty if it doesn’t allow law-abiding Americans with the right to own guns. However, the Huffington Post quoted Suzanne Trimel, Amnesty International spokeswoman, who said, “Basically, what they’re saying is that the arms trade treaty will have some impact on domestic, Second Amendment gun rights. And that is just false, completely false,” (Rosalsky, 2012).

Is Gun Control Too Late?

According to the Economist, gun control is too late, anyway. “There are too many guns out there, and an individual right to bear arms is now entrenched in constitutional law,” (Gun Control, 2012). Gun supporters argue that whether or not the Economist actually agrees that guns should be a right in America doesn’t matter, because it is too late to take out of the American culture what defines it. People have this freedom for a reason, just as they have the right to self defense. Without gun rights, people are at risk of being taken advantage of by those who find firearms through illicit means. Taking away gun rights is like equipping an army with butter knives, because the enemy could be coming to the doorstep, and the enemy is equipped with firearms gun supporters argue. They say the Colorado slaughter and similar crimes have nothing to do with gun laws because the guns used in that act wasn’t legal, anyway. There are standards that have to be met in regulating which types of firearms are permissible, but to discredit every firearm based on cases involving guns that aren’t legal is comparing apples and oranges, they go on.

It is more important now than ever to define whether the Second Amendment is as valid today as it was when the Constitution was written. Without denouncing the commitment to protecting the right to bear arms, the United States is making clear to the United Nations and everyone else what the U.S. stance is on gun ownership. Anti-terrorism laws are extremely important, and they are broadening and becoming more refined each year. They need to be carried out while changing what many believe is an important right in the United States today.

Gun control laws are always brought up as a hot topic after a group of people are shot at. Of course, there are concerns when an individual is shot to death, but when there are events such as the Colorado Shooting in 2012, the topic comes up more often in the media. It seems like there is a mass shooting each year in the United States. In 2011, the Arizona shooting killed six people and another 13 were injured. The Arizona Legislature introduced two new bills easing gun laws not long before the shootings took place. But do gun control laws really do anything to help solve violence? “As unsatisfying as it sounds, the answer is that we just don’t know,” (Do gun control, 2011). The Community Guide is a resource at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that investigates information that is based on evidence to improve public health. This investigation looked at over 40 studies about gun control laws that ranged from banning the firearms to restricting the waiting periods to obtain a firearm. These studies proved insufficient to see whether there was any effect of the laws against firearms, (Do gun control, 2011). The research concluded that there aren’t enough credible studies to indicate whether gun control laws are effective. One of the problems faced is that the information attained is limited in order to respect the privacy of the individual who owns the gun.

Are More Gun Laws Important?

But this data is needed to determine whether more gun laws are important. If gun laws are put into place, they prevent criminals from getting their hands on the weapons. When a tragedy occurs, laws preventing the weapons from being fired would save many people’s lives. But the question that hasn’t been answered is whether one should ban guns or find ways to prevent dangerous people from firing them. The public is sided on the opinion of limiting the access to firearms among children, people with mental illnesses and violent criminals. This is what is already happening with the National Rifle Association’s statement that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” (Gostin, 2010). Those who are children don’t have the maturity to use a firearm in the correct way, and many of those who are violent felons are likely to use the gun to harm others. But the issues isn’t as black and white as that might lay it out to be, because there are many people who don’t fall into any of the categories of demographics that are banned who use the weapons against innocent people. In getting back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s idea that the Second Amendment allows an individual the right to bear arms, shows that it is exceedingly difficult to enact laws that apply generally to the public in regards to owning a firearm. However, the courts also are in support of longstanding prohibition on the possession of guns among people who have mental illness. The challenge is in identifying those who have mental illnesses and ensure they don’t get their hands on firearms, (Gostin, 2010).

Even with the many gun control laws that are in place, they are largely ineffective and not very efficient. The assassination attempts on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, President Ronald Reagan and John Lennon were all committed by people with mental illnesses. This gives the impression that all people who have mental illnesses are dangerous, though this isn’t the case. This would exclude an entire demographic from being able to purchase a firearm. For this reason , there are many loopholes and areas where these types of laws aren’t efficient.

Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control act of 1968 is the restriction of people who are prohibited from buying firearms. This includes people who are involuntarily committed to living in a mental institution, those who are addicted to a controlled substance and those who are determined to be dangerous and incompetent. People who receive a verdict of not guilty because of insanity are also not allowed to own a firearm. There is an entire list at the National Instant Criminal Background Check System where a person who not able to own a firearm is entered. But many people who aren’t supposed to own a firearm are never added to the list, (Gostin, 2010).

Many people believe that such a list goes against federalism. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can’t force states to report a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm or who attempted to purchase a firearm to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. This lack of obligation makes the list incomplete. While some states don’t report at all, others report those who aren’t required to be on the list, such as someone who is leaving the hospital who has been cured from a mental illness. Some other states report too little, including only letting the government know about the patients who were involuntarily committed to the hospital for 90 days or those who weren’t admitted to a mental hospital, but instead to a public hospital. Approximately 27 states, as of 2007, didn’t report any people who suffered from mental illness, (Gostin, 2010). Furthermore, sometimes people who are on the list can avoid background checks. This is particularly prevalent at dealers that are unlicensed, dealing second-hand guns. Some states even sell Brady permits, which falls the licensed seller to waive completing a background check, and this is offered in 19 states. Seven of these states don’t exclude people who have a mental illness from buying a firearm.

But the Gun Control Act has an incentive for states to regulate guns by making it illegal to sell a firearm to a person who is prohibited by state law. But not all states enforce those regulations based on the mental illnesses that a person might have. Some states have laws that only restrict access to a concealed weapon, (Babat, 2009). These states rely most often on the buyer identifying themselves as having a mental illness. This means that in states obeying the federal rules to not sell firearms to people who have mental illness, the person who suffers from the illness is still able to obtain a firearm because they don’t have to identify their condition, (Whan, 1997). The restriction to people with mental illnesses owning firearms hasn’t lowered the homicide or suicide rates. However, restrictions that are universally applied look to be more effective. For example, those states with the toughest laws against firearms have a much lower homicide rate per capita than the states that have soft laws. But the rules at the Supreme Court encourage the regulation of the person, rather than the firearm. This means that there needs to be clear-cut ways to identify those who aren’t likely to use firearms properly, (Gostin, 2011).

The identification of the individuals is critical to having firearms laws that are effective. Firearms need to be kept out of their reach. But doing so is a challenge. The blanket restrictions that are applied to everyone need to consider the rights afforded to people through the Constitution. Identifying those who are dangerous is much too difficult and full of errors in documentation, as we have seen from the states that do not properly participate in the list banning those who want to own firearms, (Gun Control, 2004). Furthermore, those who might be dangerous aren’t necessarily included on the list. Someone with substance abuse who has recently been released from a mental institution could be given permission to buy a gun, for example. Prohibited people often do find a firearms dealer who will sell them a weapon. Only several states have laws requiring a license to purchase a firearm. Even when it is discovered that a person who is restricted from owning a firearm has one in possession, police often don’t have the authority to do anything about the possession. This is tough, because approximately 3 million Americans with mental illness meet the criteria for a person who should not be allowed to own a firearm, (Gostin, 2010). The biggest challenge in keeping people who have mental illness away from firearms is protecting patient dignity and privacy. Loosening the doctor-patient confidentiality, and opening up laws that require the names of mentally ill patients to be registered at a central desk would discourage people from being honest with their doctors. Some people might not even seek treatment for their ailments if there is the change that they won’t be able to own a firearm.

Clearly it is difficult to apply a gun control strategy that is targeted at individuals. People are finding ways to own guns from dealers even if they have mental illness or a criminal record. These dealers should be shut down and the freedom that they are enjoying now should be curbed by a federally enforceable law. Furthermore, instead of approaching gun control from the perspective of eliminating certain groups from gun ownership, there should be a blanket regulation in effect that limits possession to all people. This would require an amendment to the Constitution, but this is what is required in order to bring the document into the 21st Century. While gun ownership is a Constitutional right, it should be noted that when the legislation was written, life was different, and guns were more necessary for protection and hunting. Now, instead of owning guns, people can utilize home security systems to keep their families safe. Guns are no longer a fundamental means of ensuring the safety of the public, and they procure more harm than good.

Works Cited

Babat, D. (2009). The Discriminatory History of Gun Control. University of Rhode Island.

Cole, T. (2012, July 16). U.N. Arms Treaty Puts U.S. Gun Rights in Jeopardy. United States

Cook, P. Ludwig, J., and Smaha, A. (2009, February). Gun Control After Heller: Threats and 
Sideshows from a Social Welfare Perspective. The University of Chicago.

Cornell, S., DeDino, N. (2004). A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun 
Control. The Fordham Law School Institutional Repository.

Do gun control laws prevent violence?” (2011, Jan. 31). Evidence-Based Living.

Gun Control issues, Public Health, and Safety.” (2004, Oct. 22). The University of Utah.

Gun Control Too Late. (2012, July 21). The Economist.

Political Advocacy Groups. (2012, Aug., 17). University of Washington.

Rosalsky, G., Hersh, J. (July 27, 2012). U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Fails On U.S. Opposition After 
False NRA Gun Rights Threat. Huffington Post.

Whan, Ik. Et al. (1997).  The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
Kean University.

Vernick, J. and Hepburn, Lisa. (2002). Twenty Thousand Gun-Control Laws? The Brookings