Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot Essay Example for Free

Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot Essay Samuel Beckett was born in Dublin, Ireland in 1906. Beckett was a playwright, writer and poet. He was considered to be one of the key writers who wrote in the style of the theatre of the absurd. The theatre of the absurd are plays in which the characters are caught up in hopeless situations and in a plot that is very expansive and without meaning. Becketts first play titled Waiting for Godot which was translated into English from French. Waiting for Godot was one of his most famous plays and is renowned throughout the world. Beckett received the Nobel Prize in 1969 for literature and passed way in 1989. Samuel Beckett uses many techniques to emphasize the themes of friendship, dependency, loyalty, uncertainty and ambiguity. Beckett also uses various literature techniques such as puns and mirrors. The use of black humor is used to lighten up the dim, dark vibe given off by the situations and scenarios. The theme of uncertainty can be witnessed throughout the play; we see this from the use of language. We can see from the following quote taken from Act 1 page 16 where Vladimir and Estragon are having a conversation and Estragon says he should be here. He didnt say for sure hed come. And if he doesnt? This quote shows that both Estragon and Vladimir are both confused and uncertain about whether Godot will arrive and if they were even meant to be waiting for him today. This might show the lack of self assurance, because Vladimir and estragon arent self assured and are always uncertain of whether what they are think is right and therefore they depend on each other to help. This also relates to another theme, the theme of friendship and dependency, that both characters rely on each other and that without each other they would be hopeless. Friendship, dependency and loyalty are themes seen in the play. Even from the very beginning of the play the theme of friendship and dependency exists, on the first page Vladimir says to Estragon that he would be nothing more than a little heap of bones without him. This friendship and dependency can be seen again when Estragon cannot take off his boot without Vladimir offering his help. During act one on page 32 Estragon tries to wipe Luckeys tears off his cheek but instead lucky kicks him. When Estragon whelps in pain and says I cant walk, Vladimir offers to carry him. This illustrates the friendship and loyalty that Vladimir and Estragon have towards each other. The theme of Loyalty cannot only be seen through Vladimir and estragon, but can also be seen through the relationship between Lucky and Pozzo. Again on page 32 when Vladimir asks you want to get rid of him? Pozzo replies I do. Despite Pozzo allowing Lucky to depart, Lucky is reluctant to; this shows the loyalty that Lucky had gained throughout the years that he has been with Pozzo. Another theme that appears within the dramatic works of Beckett is the theme of ambiguity. Ambiguity can be seen within the play Waiting for Godot in the way lines are being said. The language that the characters use is very unclear and allows different ways of thinking. An example of this is on page 29 when Pozzo places the pipe in his mouth and says, The second is never as sweetas the first, I mean. But its sweet just the same. This quote struck me as being ambiguous because he first states that the pipe isnt as sweet as the second but then says its sweet just the same. I feel that Beckett might have used ambiguity to give the reader or audience the chance to see two different sides to the scene or dialogue. This is usually done using black humor, which allows the audience to both laugh and be serious at the same time. Both black humor and comedy can be seen within the play. Black humor and comedy is humor generated through topics that are considered to be taboo or laughter that is created from someone elses pain and suffering. On page 12 while Estragon is struggling with his boot Vladimir asks It hurts? and Estragon answers Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!. This shows the use of black humor because at this point everyone in the audience would be laughing at Estragons hardship but at the same time wondering if it is right to be laughing. I think the Beckett might have used black humor to teach us a lesson. By using black humor Beckett allows the audience to laugh at others pain, but at the same time while laughing the audience is wondering why they are laughing and is it right to be laughing at someone elses suffering. The literature technique of mirrors is used within the play, many critics have wondered if Godot was meant to be God, this is because we never find out who Godot is. A quote that supports this case can be seen on page 19 when Estragon and Vladimir are talking about Godot coming and then they mention that they are waiting for him because its A kind of prayer and a vague supplication. This could be perceived as Estragon and Vladimir asking God for advice or praying for Gods help. From the mirror of Godot we could say that Estragon and Vladimir can be seen as the two thieves that were crucified beside Christ. A quote that supports this can be seen in act 1 on page 14 when Vladimir begins to tell the story Our Savior. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other one damned. This quote could be interpreted as Estragon and Vladimir being the two thieves. I suspect that Beckett might have used mirrors to give meaning to the plot and shed some light on what is happening. If you imagine it as the two thieves asking and waiting God to come and forgive them and set them free. Through the use of various literature techniques such as mirrors, black humor and comedy, the reader can successfully reflect back on the issues and themes that are discussed and portrayed in this play. In conclusion, Beckett uses these techniques and themes to create meaning and shed some light on the gloomy and confusing plot. This then entices the reader and audience to continue to watch or read and allows them to think much more about what they have just witnessed.

The Salmonella Outbreak In Usa Commerce Essay

The Salmonella Outbreak In Usa Commerce Essay The Peanut Corporation of America was formally a family-owned peanut processing business and maker of peanut butter for bulk distribution to institutions, food service industries, and private label food companies. The company was founded in 1977 by Stewart Parnell along with his father, Hugh, and two younger brothers, Hugh, Jr. and Mike (Business Yellow Page, 2009). The company was headquartered in Lynchburg, Virginia, where they started the business working out of their home (Business Yellow Page, 2009). By 1994 the family turned a slow growing peanut roasting operation into a company with sales that surpassed 30 million dollars and employed over 95 permanent employees (Business Yellow Page, 2009). In 1995 the business was sold to a large commodities corporation while Parnells father, Hugh, retired from the peanut industry (Business Yellow Page, 2009). Stewart Parnell and his two brothers were kept as management consultants by the companys new corporate owner (Business Yellow Page 2009). The company manufactured roughly 2.5 percent of the nations processed peanuts (Chapman Newkirk, 2009). Stewart Parnell served as a peanut-quality adviser to the U.S. Department of Agriculture until he was removed from the board Februay of 2009 (Chapman Newkirk, 2009). PCA operated processing facilities located in Blakely, Georgia; Suffolk, Virginia; and Plainview, Texas (Business Yellow Page, 2009). As indicated by Layton and Miroff (2009), PCA supplied ingredients to some of the biggest names on supermarket shelves: Kellogg, Sara Lee, Little Debbie. The federal government was a customer, too, buying his peanuts for poor school children, disaster victims and military troops. PCAs products were not sold directly to consumers, but shipped to other manufactures that used their products as ingredients to make cookies, crackers, pet treats, energy bars, ice cream, and other products (Consumer Affairs 2009). Products ranged from peanut butter, peanut paste and peanut oil (msnbc, 2009). Peanut Corporation of Americas scandal began when the company allegedly shipped its peanut butter products knowing they could be contaminated with salmonella which resulted in the outbreak of 2008 (McCormick, 2009). According to Mundy (2009), who interviewed Ron Simon a criminal trial Lawyer for victims of PCA negligence, remarks that PCA knowingly shipped contaminated products which were positively tested for salmonella by two independent labs the company hired. These contaminated shipments were sent to nursing homes, school cafeterias, grocery stores and wholesale outlets. Since the beginning of the peanut salmonella outbreak in September 2008, more than 714 people became ill in 46 U.S. states and one Canadian province, which contributed to at least 9 deaths (Lawyers and Settlements.com, 2009). Its among the largest recalls that weve had, said Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDAs Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (msnbc, 2009). The illness was traced back to the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) processing plants in Blakely, GA and Plainview, TX according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Lawyers and Settlements.com, 2009). PCA was no stranger to of selling contaminated products; its Blakely plant was discovered with salmonella in 2006 as a possible result of imported organic peanuts from China according to a letter released by the committee on Nov. 2, 2006 (Zhang and Jargon, 2009). Mr. Parnell was also informed via letter by Darlene Cowart, President of JLA USA testing service that it was likely that the organic peanuts imported from Chinese could be a source for microbial hazards based on the type of fertilizers that was used on the organic product (Zhang and Jargon, 2009). Ms. Cowart also testified that Peanut Corp. samples were tested positive for salmonella between 2007 and 2008 (Zhang and Jargon, 2009). FDA requested a recall for all products containing peanut butter, peanut paste and peanut oil manufactured since January 1, 2007, at the Blakely, Georgia processing center (msnbc, 2009). Federal inspectors found mold, roaches and a leaking roof at the Georgia peanut factory, Dow Jones Newswires reports (Rubenstei, 2009). There are two forms of stakeholders in business ethics, specifically, primary and secondary stakeholders which the Peanut Corporation of Americas case affected. Primary stakeholders are necessary for a firms survial and include employees, customers, investors, shareholders, as well as, businesses, large or small (such as small businesses that used PCAs product as raw material to make product and later market to consumers) (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2008, p. 32). Whereas, secondary stakeholders are not essential for a companys survival; these include the media, trade association and special-interest groups (for example, the American Association of Retired People AARP) (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2008, p. 32). Two primary stakeholders at PCA were Stewart Parnell, president and CEO, and Sammy Lightsey, the plant manager of the Blakely, Georgia plant . Several email were exchanged between Parnell, Lightsey (plant manager of Blakely, GA) and Mary Wilkerson (employee at the Blakely plant) regarding batches of peanut products that tested positive for salmonella by two independent laboratories, J. Leek Associates being one company and Deibel being the other and ignored (Committee on Energy and Commerce 2009). Because of this many stakeholders, both primary and secondary were affected by Peanut Corporation of Americas unethical decision-making. The medias impact on the Peanut Corporation of America brought awareness to members of the community by revealing incidents of PCA as it become known, brought awareness to consumers about the actions of PCA. Managers should be mindful of secondary stakeholders and express thoughtfulness in making ethical decisions. In general, both primary and secondary stakeholders embrace specific values and standards which govern anything that is deemed acceptable or unacceptable corporate behaviors (Ferrell, Fraedrich Ferrell, pp.32-33). Peanut Corporation of America was sued by American Candy Company after the FDA discovered in 1990 that Peanut Corporation of Americas peanut butter exceeded the FDA tolerance level for aflatoxin, a toxic mold (Blackwell, 2009). Another lawsuit against Peanut Corporation of America was brought by Zachary Confections, Inc. of Frankfort, Indiana in 1991 after a 40,020-pound shipment of nuts from Peanut Corporation of America was found to have an unacceptably high l evel of aflatoxin (Blackwell, 2009). Because of the unethical decisions made by PCA in January of 2009, all but three of the 46 employees at the Blakely plant were laid off (wsbtv.com 2, 2009). And on February 12, 2009 the Plainview, Texas plant, which employeed approximately 30 employees, was ordered to shut down by the state health officials (Relative, 2009). These employees, because of their assocation with PCA, lost their jobs. On Janaury 10, 2009, another primary stakeholder, the Solon, OH based King Nut Company, recalled its King Nut and Parnells Pride peanut butter brands that were manufactured by PCA to a distribution chain involving institutions such as hospitals, schools, restaurants and nursing homes (Ashcraft Gerel, LLP, 2009). Now PCAs insurer, Hartford Insurance has filed a lawsuit against PCA to determine if they are responsible for claims filed by victims of this nationwide salmonella outbreak and has asked the court to determine whether the terms of the companys policy exclude coverage for salmonella c laims, along with its obligation to Peanut Corp. (Lindsey, 2009). Peanut Corporation of Americas dishonest behavior seriously affected the primary stakeholders because of the unethical decisions made by the companys leaders and partners of the corporation. The unethical decisions as stated earlier by PCA negatively affected the lives of their employees by the loss of their jobs and the disgrace of being previously employed by PCA put employees in an insecure situation with potential employers. In this situation the people that were sicken, the people that died, the states that were affected, and the companies that had to recall products were all stakeholders in one form or another. Investors and shareholders who gave out money to PCA were also affected by the indiscretions of PCAs mismanagement. Executives and managers of PCA shared in a large gamble which impacted and changed the lives of many individuals and corporations both large and small. Peanut Corporation of America, the company at the center of the nationwide salmonella scare, filed for Chapter 7 in February 2009 (Miroff and Lyndsey, 2009). The filing of bankruptcy negatively affected its investors and shareholders. Others affected by the bankruptcy are secondary stakeholders; government, management agencies and the media. The government was negatively impacted in taxation because of plant closures in the form of income tax and lost sales tax because of lost product sales. The Peanut Corporation of America had its general liability insurance with The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut. According to Simon (2009),  PCA has $24 million dollars in insurance from The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company which is specifically dedicated to  covering  the food poisoning claims. The insurance coverage is broken up into two policy periods, 10/1/07 9/30/08 and 10/1/08 9/30/09 (Simon, 2009). The The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company rushed to court to limit what it might have to pay on lawsuits (Levick, 2009).They asked a federal court in Virginia to determine what the responsibility is on three years of policies that was issued to PCA (Levick, 2009). Legal analysis The Peanut Corporation of Americas lack of respect and nonconformity for the consumer protection laws was one of the key legal issues relating to the salmonella outbreak. That was one of the contributing factor that led them to be non-compliant with the law. Another, the corporations primary focus was that of making profit and showing complete disregard for consumers and the law thereof. According to Mundy (2009), PCA avoided taking necessary safety measures in safeguarding its facilities which resulted in leaking roofs. Not only did that PCA spend $60,000 in August 2008 to repair a leaky roof in the plant, Ron Simon a trial lawyer stated that the roof was already leaking bird feces before it was repairedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦, a clear indication that PCA allegedly failed to maintain proper conditions and practices conducive for managing safety protocols at their facilities (Mundy, 2009). Consumer Protection is government regulations to protect the interests of consumers (Lawyers.com, 2009) . The law refers to state and federal consumer protection and product safety statutes and regulatons that restrict or prohibit deceptive trade practices such as the Consumer Protection Act (Lawyers.com, 2009). The Federal Trade Commission is the main agency enforcing consumer protection statutes (Lawyers.com, 2009). It was established in 1914, for the purpose of supporting consumer protection to drive and control unfair or harmful business practices; it exercises consumer rights and prevents them from being swindled and aids against fraud and deception and enables consumers to make well-informed decisions about products and how they spend their money (www.ftc.gov). The state courts (and some federal courts) in the 1930s placed restrictions on the freedom-to-contract doctrine by establishing rules of public policy and doctrines of unconscionability and fundamental breach that allow the courts to interfere in contractual relationships (Brennan, Browne Kubasek, pp.772). Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established in the 1930s, as a part of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services to regulate products which accounted for approximately 25% of the U.S gross national prod uct. As stated by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. The companys actions can only be described as reprehensible and criminal, not only did this company knowingly sell tainted products, it shopped for a laboratory that would provide the acceptable results they were seeking. This behavior represents the worst of our current food safety regulatory system (KDKA2, 2009). The company had previously told the FDA that some lots of peanut butter had initially tested positive for the bacterium, then were retested and found to be negative before they were shipped. But further investigation showed that the company actually shipped some of the lots before the second tests were completed. Other lots were shipped without testing and, in some cases, no second test was performed even after the first one came back positive (Maugh and Engel, 2009). The company did not initially disclose that to investigators trying to solve the current salmonella outbreak (KDKA2, 2009). The FDA did not formally announce the new findings about the companys testing, but rather made small revisions Thursday to an online report about the investigation (Maugh and Engel, 2009. It was only when a Washington Post reporter discovered the changes and the news become more widely known (Maugh and Engel, 2009). Ethical Analysis The Peanut Corporation bottom line was to make a profit and not care about social responsibility to the public. The company continued to ship product they knew was contaminated. T he ethical behavior of the company and Stewart Parnell was to keep production going no matter at what cost. This transmitted a lack of morals and value by upper management by keeping their employees working and meeting their shipping demands. The company also continued to run his plants in an unclean manner which put consumer food safety at risk. There are three ethical perspectives that I will focus on as they exhibit both ethical and unethical behavior. The first being consequential theory, this theory brings out questions of moral issues. Under the consequential theory acts are judged ethically good or bad based on whether the acts have achieved their desired results and the acts are looked at as right or wrong on whether the results can be rationalized (Kubasek, Brennan Browne, 2009, p. 223). When examining the scandal of the Peanut Corporation of America the consequential utilitarianism school of thought can be applied. Stewart Parnell thought process can be viewed as being both ethical and unethical. The main issue in this case study was Parnell shipping products that were tainted. For the argument of ethics it could be assumed that Parnell was seeking the best interest of his company to obtain a profit. Parnells rational included keeping and production flowing and employees working while, the unethical can be argued that a desired outcome was not obtained as a result of the deaths and illnesses of consumers and inability for Peanut Corporation of American to remain in business. Parnell should have had a strategy in place that should have been customers first then his employees. The second ethical perspective is the deontological theory which is derived from the Greek word meaning ethics refers to moral philosophies that focus on the rights of individuals and on the intentions associated with a particular behavior rather than on its consequences (Ferrell, Fraedich, Ferrell, 2008, p.153). Deontological theory is also from the Greek word duty, in which actions can be judged ethically good or bad based on rules and principles arrived at by human reason regardless of the action and whether net happiness is reached (Kubasek, Brennan Browne, 2009, p. 225). Based on email that Mary Wilkerson sent to Stewart Parnell on June 6, 2008, Peanut Corporation of American used two outside laboratories for testing (Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2009). Because Peanut Corporation of American testested and re-tested their producted until they received the results they needed, this could be considered ethical or unethical. Ethical because Mr. Parnell needed to receive a neg ative result so that he could continue his production and shipping of his product. It also could be a means of the company double checking results for consumer protection. On the other hand because Parnell sent samples to multiple laboratories until they found their desired results of the product testing to be negative for salmnella poisioning could be considered unethical. An facet of the deontological theory is that a person should engage only in acts that he or she could see becoming a universal standard (Kubasek, Brennan Browne, 2009, p. 225). Another email sent to Sammy Lightsey from Parnell also shows Parnells unethical behavior. According to the email Parnell sent to Sammy Lightsey, he instructed Sammy to ship the tainted product by stating, okay, lets turn them loose then (Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2009). The third school of thought, humanist theory, where actions are evaluated as ethically good or bad based on whether they contribute to improving inherent human capacities as it pertains to intelligence, wisdom, and self restraint (Browne, Brennan, Kubasek, p.226). According to the USDA, Parnells previous position on the U.S. Department of Agricultures Peanut Standards Boards, which sets the quality and handling standards, intended to assure that satisfactory quality and wholesome peanuts are used in the domestic and import peanut markets (Keefe, 2009). Parnell was first appointed to the USDAs Peanut Standards Board in July 2005 and was reappointed for another term that would have expired in 2011 (Keefe, 2009). On February 5, 2009, the USDA announced that the new Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had removed Parnell from the board (Akre, 2009). Mr. Parnells ethical behavior based on the humanist theory put him in a great position to help improve quality and handling standards for pea nuts grown and marketed domestically and imported. Parnells unethical behavior could be considered as a conflict of interest because he did not follow those standards within his own company, which caused his own plants to suffer miserably in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. It is obvious that Parnell didnt have the understanding, Knowledge, intelligence or even discipline to run a processing plant. Contributing Factors The companys culture encouraged unethical behavior and did everything to undermine anything ethical, stemming from sanitation conditions from the beginning because of the history of the overall business operation and that of Mr. Parnells upbringing. David Brooks, a former buyer for a snack company who was familiar with the conditions of PCAs business operation (Layton Miroff, 2009, p.2). Brooks also noted that on three occasions in the mid 1980s, he inspected PCAs Gorman plant to determine whether to buy its peanut products and each time, he gave the plant a failing grade (Layton Miroff, 2009, p. 2). According to Brooks, It was just filthy; Dust was all over the beams, the braces of the building. The roofs leaked, the windows would be open, and birds would fly through the building . . . It was just a time bomb waiting to go off, and everybody in the peanut industry in Georgia, Virginia and Texas they all knew (Layton and Miroff, 2009). According to two former Blakely employees, one recalls opening a tote of peanuts at the processing plant in this small Georgia town and seeing baby mice in it. It was filthy and nasty all around the place, (Glover, 2009). Unethical behavior of upper management and Stewart Parnell were more concerned about profits instead of the lives of the consumers who were vulnerable to harm and the employees who were deliberately deceived about the true results of the contaminated products. The PCA Georgia Plant contributed to the sanitation problem. There were ethical issues throughout the plant that lead to the tainted products. There were peanuts stored next to the finished peanut butter (Smalley, 2009). The roaster they used was not calibrated to kill deadly germs (Smalley, 2009). Dispirited workers on minimum wage, supplied by temp agencies, donned their uniforms at home, potentially dragging contaminants into the plant, which also had rodents (Smalley, 2009). The roof of the PCA plant in Georgia leaked when it rained which is a big risk; given that salmonella thrives in water and the facility should have been dry (Smalley, 2009). The Federal officials in Texas did not even know PCAs Plainview facility existed until after they started investigating the Blakely plant (Layton Miroff, 2009). It was unlicensed and had been uninspected by the government for four years (Layton Miroff, 2009). This company has shown a manner of disrespect for the consumer right laws and obvious disregard for consumer safety that filtered from the top of the corporation down through management. The impatience of not waiting on the results of the test and conducting several re-test to obtain a favorable result was in poor judgment and a sure sign that problems were being ignored and standardized procedures were not being followed by these leaders. They were comfortable wallowing in filth and infestations within their food processing plants for thirty years. Thats a culture that will and did breed all types of legal and unethical problems that was bound to catch up with them. It seemed that they all lacked insight and did not think thoroughly about the results of their actions or to make ethical decisions. They may not have cared about the Consumer Protection Law but they should have been worried about Murphys Law. Ethical decision factors to consider There are three factors to be addressed relating to the ethical theories previously discussed in this case analysis. Based on perspectives of consequential theory where acts are judged as ethically good or bad based on whether the acts have achieved their desired results (Brennan, Browne, Kubasek, 2009, p. 223-224). Under the consequential theory this ethical issue reiterates Parnells actions for shipping products that he knew was contaminated, to keep production flowing and their plants making a profit. The company also had a lack of concern for the consumers health and management continued filling orders with tainted products. The golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the hallmark of the deontological theory (Brennan, Browne, Kubasek, 2009, p. 225). Under the deontological theory the ethical issue was lab shopping. Parnells persistence of conducting multiple tests in order to obtain results pleasing to his satisfaction without thought of the unforeseen consequences. The ethical decision factor to be considered in this situation is the need for ethical policies for quality control checking. All companies should have this process in place for products we consume. This way it wont be misinterpreted as lab shopping. And the third school of thought, humanist theory evaluated actions s good or bad depending on whether they contribute to improving inherent human capacities such as intelligence, wisdom, and self-restraint (Brennan, Brown, Kubasek, 2009, p. 226). Under the humanist theory the ethical issue was Parnells conflict of interest based on his previous held position on the U.S. Department of Agricultures Peanut Standards Boards. The ethical decision factors to be considered in this situation are showing little intelligence, wisdom or self-restrain, sitting on the board that he was clearly not qualified for. Recommended corrective action Outbreaks of salmonella are not unfamiliar to the FDA and Peanut Corporation of America was not the first company to be confronted with this issue. In 2005, a ConAgra Foods factory in Georgia was inspected by the FDA due to complaints about a salmonella contamination (Glover, 2009). Spinach contaminated with salmonella followed by peppers and tomatoes was the big scare of 2006 (Shvartsman, 2009). In June, 2009, Nestle Toll House cookie dough and 380,000 pounds of beef produced by JBS Swift Beef Company were recalled due to E. coli contamination (Shvartsman, 2009). Peanut Corporation of America filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and closed its doors and is now in legal proceedings (Miroff Layton, 2009). ConAgra can be considered the industry leader in setting examples for what should be done when product may be tainted. Therefore, there should be no reason why Peanut Corporation would not know how what to do in a situation such as this. PCA like ConAgra could have voluntarily issued recall voluntarily upon learning about the products which were tested positively for salmonella. PCA could have prevented this tragic end to its business and the lives of those lost if they had attempted to rectify the situation properly and address the root of the problems which were many. It may be too late for implementation of a corrective action for Peanut Corporation of America, but not too late for a corrective action for the remainder of the food processing industry. Food processing plants and warehouses should base their policies and procedures off the guidelines for food safety set forth by the Food and Drug Administration. As part of a new regulation, Obama administration is working on toughening food safety standards. A bill that recommends a proactive stance in preventing food contamination was approved by the House (Shvartsman, 2009). The bill will step up inspections of high risk facilities every six months, or at least once a year (Shvartsman, 2009). This change will dramatically lower food recalls. The final regulation will come in the fall when the Senate votes on the bill (Shvartsman, 2009). The House voted to empower the FDA to order recalls (Shvartsman, 2009). Food safety advocates have been lobbying Congress to give the FDA more regulatory power over the food supply, a vast and growing network crossing state lines and international borders (Shvartsman, 2009). As stated earlier PCA had plants in Georgia, Texas and Virginia. This new bill will provide the FDA the power to police companies that have locations in multiple states (Shvartsman, 2009). PCA was unlikely to remain in business given Mr. Parnells inherent behavior along with those who were a part of his management. PCA was unlikely to remain in business under the direction of Stewart Parnell. Parnells inherent behavior along with those who were a part of his management did not act in an ethical manner towards the community. Mr. Parnell consistently put profits ahead of public safety and acted in a manner that proved to be detrimental to society. Therefore, it can be concluded that PCA lacked business ethics and morals and how they portrayed the companys image and conveyed disregard for their employees and members of the community.

Essay on the Metamorphosis of Tom in The Glass Menagerie

The Metamorphosis of Tom in The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams      Ã‚   In Tennessee William's play, The Glass Menagerie, the character of Tom is both a son and a brother. Tom has also been forced into the role as the man of the house because of his father's departure. He is very unique and somewhat unpredictable in his words and actions. Tom is selfish, yet caring, and he has a strong need for adventure. Without doubt, Tom is the most round and dynamic character in the play. Tom's role in his household is to provide for his sister and mother by working at the shoe warehouse. He basically gives up his life so his family can live. So how can one say that Tom is selfish? The reader has to look further than skin deep. Tom works at the warehouse but he truly despises it, because in scene three he said, "I'd rather somebody picked up a crowbar and batter out my brains than go back mornings."(Williams 1036).   Also, it seems Tom does not care if he gets fired or not judging by the amount of time that he spends writing poetry at work. Tom does not appreciate what he has or that his family is provided for. Tom also shows a hint of selfishness when he tells Amanda that there is nothing in that house that he can honestly call his own. Tom also goes to the movies or gets drunk almost every night and he knows that Amanda and Laura are worried about him but that changes nothing. He still goes out without thinking of how it affects his mother or sister.   To escape from his slow life while he was at home Tom goes to the movies almost every night. It is at the movies that Tom can drink and somehow live his adventurous life through his imagination and the characters in the movies. The movies only satisfied Tom's thirst for adve... .... Works Cited Bloom, Harold Ed. Modern Critical Views: Tennessee Williams. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. Fordyce, William. "Tennessee William's Tom Wingfield"   Papers on Language and Literature 34.3 (Summer 1998): 250-272.   ProQuest.   Jacobs Library, Oglesby, IL.   11 July 2001. <http://www.umi.com/proquest>. Jolemore, Nancy.   "Lecture Notes and Study Guide Questions for Tennessee William's The Glass Menagerie."   Old Dominion University.   18 January   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   2000.   29 June 2001. <http://courses.lib.odu.edu/engl/njolemor>. Reser, Rob.   "A Touch of Glass."   29 June 2001. <http://www.filmspot.com/glassmenagerie.html>. Williams, Tennessee.   The Glass Menagerie.   Literature and The Writing Process.   5th ed. Elizabeth McMahan, Susan X. Day, and Robert Funk. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice, 1999.   693-734.

A Jest Of God :: essays research papers

A Jest of God We were strangers from the beginning tormented by our difference which did not exist. (Betsy Warland) An important ingredient inherent in a successful mother-daughter relationship is balance. Like the scales of justice, maintaining equilibrium requires work. The special bond between mother and daughter is delicate and unlike any other relationship due to expectations of performance on behalf of both women. The female psyche is, characteristically, particular: each woman having a certain regiment making themselves unique. Ideals and behavior learned, possibly inherited, from others are two of many things which carve an individual's personality. It is these similarities and differences which often cause conflicts between mother and daughter. In A Jest of God, the relationship between Rachel and her mother is strained due to unspoken expectations that each had of the other. Stemming from poor communication, a host of differences were assumed to exist between the two, when in fact their struggle originated in their sameness. The largest weapon which spear-headed the communication war between Rachel and her mother was the generation gap; coming from different eras, the pair assumed they had nothing in common. In Rachel's eyes her mother was a pristine, saintly woman who maintained high moral values for herself and her family. Therefore, being a good person and making the right decisions was never questionable to Rachel, as this was how her mother expected her to behave. Rachel listened numerous times to her mother comment on how "peculiar" her behavior looked, and spoke of anyone else she observed doing the same. Although this annoyed Rachel about her mother, she adopted similar paranoia tendencies, speculating how her behavior with Nick, a summer beau, looked to anyone who could be watching or noticing. Irritated by her mother's attitude, Rachel excused it on the pretense that her views reflected the past times in which she lived. However, Rachel had neither the patience nor the desire to speak out against her mother for fear of stirring trouble between them. The irony in Rachel's decision is that their relationship needed just what she was so desperately trying to avoid. By turning her back on the communication problem between herself and her mother, Rachel wanted to believe that the problem was inherent in the misunderstanding each had of the other. Underneath her shell, Rachel was coming to terms with what was really true of the gap between herself and her mother: their difference lay in her want to not be similar. Both were single: Rachel unmarried and her mother a widow. Through her fling with Nick, Rachel wanted to express her desires to be independent from her mother, and have an adult

A Respectable Trade: Slavery :: Market Systems England Essays

A Respectable Trade: Slavery Many economic systems are revealed in A Respectable Trade: Slavery, Feudalism, Self-Employment, and Capitalism. England in 1788 was entering a period of economic transition. Viewing this finite period in A Respectable Trade allows us, as economists, to dissect the different market systems prevalent during that time. Slavery is the market system most focused on in A Respectable Trade. Josiah's "respectable trade" involves trading sugar, cocoa, coffee and cotton in Africa for captured Negro men, women and children. He then ships these "slaves" to the Caribbean, where he sells them. He makes all of his money in the sale of these people. While Josiah and Sarah Cole have been involved in the slave trade for many years, in 1788 they have just begun to experience the immediate effects of slaves in their lives. Josiah has determined that he will make more money if he ships some slaves to England to train as house slaves. He has married Frances so that she will train and teach them while they live with the Cole's in England. Josiah, Sarah, and Frances are learning the techniques of the slave master. As the film progresses, Josiah becomes more crass and unfeeling toward the slaves, seeing them solely as property. When the slaves first arrive, he feels awkward and anxious about harming them. He knows that he should punish them and lord over them, but he is more comfortable allowing Bates to reprimand and beat the slaves. He allows his customer to rape the slave girl, but he is uncomfortable doing so and does not want to watch. However, at the end of the movie, he stands over Bates while he severely beats Matthew, watching closely with no remorse. Holding human beings as property by chaining them and locking them in the house, controlling their lives and fates by selling them and forcing them to work, Josiah Cole has become a cruel slave master. Frances has a chief role in the slave system. Marrying Josiah, she becomes a teacher and a manager of the slaves in her home. She teaches them English, manners, and proper ways to serve their masters so they may become a more successful sale for Josiah. She does not do this because she desires his success, but because she is held in marriage in a feudal contract. Francis, a young woman without significant funds, without supportive family, and without an acceptable job, has few options in life.

The Hunters: Moonsong Chapter Seventeen

â€Å"That was amazing! Seriously,† Bonnie said happily, skipping along with her hand in Zander's. â€Å"I am, like, the Queen of Quarters. Who knew I had this hidden talent?† Laughing, Zander threw his arm around her shoulders and pul ed her closer. â€Å"You are pretty awesome,† he agreed. â€Å"Drinking games, visions, astrology. Any other skil s I should know about?† Snuggling against him, Bonnie frowned in mock concentration. â€Å"Not that I can think of. Just be aware of my general wonderfulness.† His T-shirt was soft and worn, and Bonnie tilted her head a bit to rest her cheek against it. â€Å"I'm glad we got our friends together,† she said. â€Å"I thought Marcus and Meredith real y hit it off, didn't you? Not romantical y, at al , which is good since Meredith has a super-serious boyfriend, but it was like they shared the same secret jock language. Maybe we can al hang out in a group again sometime.† â€Å"Yeah, Meredith and Marcus real y bonded over their workouts,† Zander agreed, but there was a hesitation in his voice that made Bonnie stop walking and peer up at him sharply. â€Å"Didn't you like my friends?† she asked, hurt. She and Meredith and Elena had always had what they privately cal ed a â€Å"velociraptor sisterhood.† Cross one of them and the other two would close in to protect her. Zander had to like them. â€Å"No, I liked them a lot,† Zander assured her. He hesitated, then added, â€Å"Elena seemed kind of †¦ uncomfortable, though. Maybe we're not the kind of people she likes?† Bonnie stiffened. â€Å"Are you cal ing my best friend a snob?† she asked. Zander stroked her back appeasingly. â€Å"Sort of, I guess. I mean, nice, but just kind of a snob. The nicest kind of snob. I just want her to like me.† â€Å"She's not a snob,† Bonnie said indignantly. â€Å"And even if she was, she's got a lot to be a snob about. She's beautiful and smart and one of the best friends I've ever had. I'd do anything for her. And she'd do anything for me, too. So it doesn't matter if she's a snob,† she concluded, glaring at him. â€Å"Come here,† Zander said. They were near the music building, and he pul ed her into the lit alcove by the front door. â€Å"Sit with me?† he asked, settling on the brick steps and tugging her hand. Bonnie sat down, but she was determined not to snuggle up to him again. Instead, she kept a distance between them and stared stubbornly out at the night, her jaw firmly set. â€Å"Listen, Bonnie,† Zander said, pushing a long strawberry blonde curl out of her eyes. â€Å"I'l get to know Elena better, and I'm sure I'l like her. I'l get her to like me, too. You know why I'm going to get to know her better?† â€Å"No, why?† said Bonnie, reluctantly looking at him. â€Å"Because I want to know you better. I'm planning on spending a lot of time with you, Bonnie McCul ough.† He nudged her gently with his shoulder, and Bonnie melted. Zander's eyes were so blue, blue like morning on the very first day of summer vacation. There was intel igence and laughter with just a touch of a wild longing in them. He leaned in closer, and Bonnie was sure he was about to kiss her, their first kiss at last. She tilted her head back to meet his lips, her eyelashes fluttering closed. After a moment of waiting for a kiss that didn't come, she sat up again and opened her eyes. Zander was staring past her, out into the darkness of the campus, frowning. Bonnie cleared her throat. â€Å"Oh,† he said, â€Å"sorry, Bonnie, I got distracted for a minute.† â€Å"Distracted?† Bonnie echoed indignantly. â€Å"What do you mean you – â€Å" â€Å"Hang on a sec.† Zander put a finger to her lips, shushing her. â€Å"Do you hear something?† Bonnie asked, uneasy tingles creeping up her back. Zander got to his feet. â€Å"Sorry, I just remembered something I have to do. I'l catch up with you later, okay?† With a halfhearted wave, not even looking at Bonnie, he loped off into the darkness. Bonnie's mouth dropped open. â€Å"Wait!† she said, scrambling to her feet. â€Å"Are you just going to leave me here† – Zander was gone – â€Å"alone?† she finished in a tiny voice. Great. Bonnie walked out to the middle of the path, looked around, and waited a minute to see if there was any sign of Zander coming back. But there was no one in sight. She couldn't even hear his footsteps anymore. There were pools of light beneath the street lamps on the path, but they didn't reach very far. A breeze rustled the leaves of the trees on the quad, and Bonnie shivered. No sense in standing here, Bonnie thought, and she started walking. For the first few steps down the path toward her dorm, Bonnie was real y angry, hot and humiliated. How could Zander have been such a flake? How could he leave her al alone in the middle of the night, especial y after al the attacks and disappearances on campus? She kicked viciously at a pebble in her path. A few steps further on, Bonnie stopped being so angry. She was too scared; the fear was pushing the anger out of her. She should have headed back to the dorm when Meredith and Elena did, but she'd assured them, gaily, that Zander would walk her back. How could he have just left her? She wrapped her arms around herself tightly and went as fast as she could without actual y running, her stupid high-heeled going-out-dancing shoes pinching and making the bal s of her feet ache. It was real y late; most of the other people who lived on campus must be tucked into their beds by now. The silence was unsettling. When the footsteps began behind her, it was even worse. She wasn't sure she was real y hearing them at first. Gradual y, she became aware of a faint, quick padding in the distance, someone moving lightly and fast. She paused and listened, and the footsteps grew louder and faster stil . Someone was running toward her. Bonnie sped up, stumbling over her feet in her haste. Her shoes skidded on a loose stone in the path and she fel , catching herself on her hands and one knee. The impact stung sharply enough to bring tears to her eyes, but she kicked off her shoes, not caring that she was leaving them behind. She scrambled up and ran faster. The footsteps of her pursuer were louder now, starting to catch up. Their rhythm was strange: loud periodic footfal s with quicker, lighter beats in between. Bonnie realized with horror that there was more than one person chasing her. Her foot skidded again, and she barely caught her balance, staggering sideways a few steps to keep from fal ing, losing more ground. A heavy hand fel on Bonnie's shoulder, and she screamed and whipped around, her fists raised in a desperate bid to defend herself. â€Å"Bonnie!† Meredith gasped, clutching Bonnie's shoulders. â€Å"What are you doing out here by yourself?† Samantha came up beside them, carrying Bonnie's shoes, and doubled over, panting for breath. â€Å"You are way too fast for me, Meredith,† she said. Bonnie swal owed a sob of relief. Now that she was safe, she felt like sitting down and having hysterics. â€Å"You scared me,† she said. Meredith looked furious. â€Å"Remember how we promised to stick together?† Meredith's gray eyes were stormy. â€Å"You were supposed to stay with Zander until you got home safely.† Bonnie, about to respond heatedly that it hadn't been her choice to be out here alone, suddenly closed her mouth and nodded. If Meredith knew that Zander had left Bonnie out here by herself, she would never, never forgive him. And Bonnie was mad at Zander for leaving her, but she wasn't quite that mad, not mad enough to turn Meredith against him. Maybe he had an explanation. And she stil wanted that kiss. â€Å"I'm sorry,† Bonnie said abjectly, staring down at her feet. â€Å"You're right, I should have known better.† Mol ified, Meredith swung an arm over Bonnie's shoulders. Samantha silently handed Bonnie her shoes, and Bonnie pul ed them back on. â€Å"Let's walk Samantha back to her dorm, and then we'l go home together,† she said forgivingly. â€Å"You'l be okay with us.† Around the corner from her room, Elena sagged and leaned against the hal way wal for a moment. It had been a long, long night. There had been drinks, and dancing with the huge shaggy-haired Spencer who, as Samantha had warned her, did try to pick Elena up and swing her around. Things got loud and aggravating, and the whole time, her heart hurt. She wasn't sure she wanted to navigate the world without Stefan. It's just for now, she told herself, straightening up and plodding around the corner. â€Å"Hel o, princess,† said Damon. Elena stiffened in shock. Lounging on the floor in front of her door, Damon somehow managed to look sleek and perfectly poised in what would have been an awkward position for anyone else. As she recovered from the shock of his being there at al , Elena was surprised by the burst of joy that rose up in her chest at the sight of him. Trying to ignore that happy little hop inside her, she said flatly, â€Å"I told you I didn't want to see you for a while, Damon.† Damon shrugged and rose graceful y to his feet. â€Å"Darling, I'm not here to plead for your hand.† His eyes lingered on her mouth for a moment, but then he went on in a dry and detached tone. â€Å"I'm just checking in on you and the little redbird, making sure you haven't disappeared with whatever's gone sour on this campus.† â€Å"We're fine,† Elena said shortly. â€Å"Here I am, and Bonnie's new boyfriend is walking her home.† â€Å"New boyfriend?† Damon asked, raising one eyebrow. He'd always had – something – some connection with Bonnie, Elena knew, and she guessed his ego might not be thril ed to have her moving past the little crush she'd focused on him. â€Å"And how did you get home?† Damon asked acidly. â€Å"I notice you haven't picked up a new boyfriend to protect you. Not yet, anyway.† Elena flushed and bit her lip but refused to rise to the bait. â€Å"Meredith just left to patrol around campus. I notice you didn't ask about her. Don't you want to make sure she's safe?† Damon snorted. â€Å"I pity any ghoul that goes after that one,† he said, sounding more admiring than anything else. â€Å"Can I come in? Note that I'm being courteous again, waiting for you out here in this dingy hal way instead of comfortably on your bed.† â€Å"You can come in for a minute,† Elena said grudgingly, and opened her bag to rummage for her keys. Oh. She felt a sudden pang of heartache. At the top of her bag, rather crushed and wilted now, was the daisy she'd found outside her door at the beginning of the evening. She touched it gently, reluctant to push it aside in the hunt for her keys. â€Å"A daisy,† said Damon dryly. â€Å"Very sweet. You don't seem to be taking much care of it, though.† Purposely ignoring him, Elena grabbed her keys and snapped the bag shut. â€Å"So you think the disappearances and attacks are because of ghouls? Do you mean something supernatural?† she asked, unlocking the door. â€Å"What did you find out, Damon?† Shrugging, Damon fol owed her into the room. â€Å"Nothing,† he answered grimly. â€Å"But I certainly don't think the missing kids just freaked out and went home or to Daytona Beach or something. I think you need to be careful.† Elena sat down on her bed, drew her knees up, and rested her chin on them. â€Å"Have you used your Power to try to figure out what's going on?† she asked. â€Å"Meredith said she would ask you.† Damon sat down next to her and sighed. â€Å"Beloved, as little as I like to admit it, even my Power has limits,† he said. â€Å"If someone is much stronger than me, like Klaus was, he can hide himself. If someone is much weaker, he doesn't usual y make enough of an impression for me to find him unless I already know who he is. And for some ridiculous reason† – he scowled – â€Å"I can never sense werewolves at al .† â€Å"So you can't help?† Elena said, dismayed. â€Å"Oh, I didn't say that,† Damon said. He touched a loose strand of Elena's golden hair with one long finger. â€Å"Pretty,† he said absently. â€Å"I like your hair pul ed back like this.† She twitched away from him, and he dropped his hand. â€Å"I'm looking into it,† he went on, his eyes gleaming. â€Å"I haven't had a good hunt in far too long.† Elena wasn't sure that she ought to find this comforting, but she did, in a kind of scary way. â€Å"You'l be relentless, then?† she asked, a little chil going through her, and he nodded, his long black lashes half veiling his eyes. She was so sleepy and felt happier now that she'd seen Damon, although she knew she shouldn't have let him in. She missed him, too. â€Å"You had better go,† she said, yawning. â€Å"Let me know what you find out.† Damon stood, hesitating by the end of her bed. â€Å"I don't like leaving you alone here,† he said. â€Å"Not with everything that's been happening. Where are those friends of yours?† â€Å"They'l be here,† Elena said. Something generous in her made her add, â€Å"But if you're that worried, you can sleep here if you want.† She'd missed him, she had, and he was being a perfect gentleman. And she had to admit, she would feel safer with him there. â€Å"I can?† Damon quirked a wicked eyebrow. â€Å"On the floor,† Elena said firmly. â€Å"I'm sure Bonnie and Meredith wil be glad for your protection, too.† It was a lie. While Bonnie would be thril ed to see him, there was a decent chance Meredith would kick him on purpose as she crossed the room. She might even put on special pointy-toed boots to do it. Elena got up and pul ed down a spare blanket from her closet for him, then headed off to brush her teeth and change. When she came back, al ready for bed, he was lying on the floor, wrapped in the blanket. His eyes lingered for a minute on the curve of her neck leading down to her lacy white nightgown, but he didn't say anything. Elena climbed into bed and turned out the light. â€Å"Good night, Damon,† she said. There was a soft rush of air. Then suddenly he whispered softly in her ear, â€Å"Good night, princess.† Cool lips brushed her cheek and then were gone.

Human Genetic Engineering Essay

â€Å"Human genetic engineering is the alteration of an individual’s genotype with the aim of choosing the phenotype of a newborn or changing the existing phenotype of a child or adult. It holds the promise of curing genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, and increasing the immunity of people to viruses. It is speculated that genetic engineering could be used to change physical appearance, metabolism, and even improve mental faculties like memory and intelligence†. (Wikipedia) There are many risks associated with putting genes into a human body while getting the desired results. There are genes that are carried in on viral vectors and we have altered these budgets so that they do not infect a person with a disease. There have been several deaths in gene therapy trials, such as â€Å"Jesse Gelsinger†, in 1999. Genetic engineering has attracted much controversy, pros and cons. There have been cries that scientists are â€Å"playing God† and this will lead to a two-tier society or as some would say; the haves and have- nots. This isn’t any different that the cries that were heard across the world when Louise Brown, the first child to be conceived by IVF treatment, was born. This was in the late 1970’s. Today IVF is a common but expensive fertility treatment. Genetic engineering holds the potential that parents would assemble their children genetically, to be smarter or more athletic or have a certain eye or hair color. It is this genetic engineering of humans that frighten people. They are afraid that we would somehow design the human race. But then again, people say that this could be a benefit to be able to sort out the genes that criminals have and weed it out. It is also said that a genetically engineered human could suffer from a reduced sense of individuality. A cloned child might feel that their future is worth less than a non cloned child. Critics also argue that cloning would encourage parents to value how well child can genetically meet their expectations rather than loving them for who they are. It is also said that with cloning humans, that parents and society would view their children as objects rather than a person with actually feelings. If human cloning becomes a reality and a regular social practice, parents might want to â€Å"play the lottery† and chose their child genetically. One of the saddest parts about genetic engineering is that it could end human individuality. Everyone would want to be skinny, muscular, beautiful, and intelligent and who knows what else. If your DNA could be shaped would you choose inferior traits? This could possibly end artistic expression and individuality, and make everyone predictable, identical, and boring just like a robot.