Broome County CAFR Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Broome County CAFR - Article Example With the increased use of debt capital for financing, the magnitude of interest payable on outstanding debt increases (Megginson and Smart, 2008, p.53). The actual long term solvency would depend on the ability of the company to generate sufficient incomes from their operations so that they are able to service fixed interest payable on outstanding liability. Generally the ideal value of debt ratio should be less than 0.50. Debt Equity Ratio The Debt to Equity ratio is a measure of relative proportion of debt to shareholders’ equity that is used by the company to finance its assets. It is one of the indicators for long term solvency of a company. The two components of this ratio are derived from the balance sheet of the company that reflects the company’s financial position on a given date. The debt observed in this ratio is usually the long term debt of the organization. The composition of debt and equity in the capital structure of a firm determines influences value of firm and its long term solvency (Gibson, 2012, pp.285-286). Basically, this ratio is a measure of company’s future obligations relative in balance sheet to equity and higher values indicate that company’s long term debt exceeds shareholders’ equity. Hence, the ideal value should be less than 1. Financial Health Analysis When the balance sheet of Broom County was analyzed for the years 2006 and 2007, it was found that Debt Ratio of Governmental Activities was 50.61% and 49.06% respectively. As discussed earlier, the acceptable value of this ratio should be less than 50% and the organization seems to have deleveraged their balance sheet in the year 2007 from 2006. The value of this ratio from Business Activities for... This research is being carried out to conduct a long term solvency test on Broom County. It is referred to as the company’s ability to honor long term obligations. In order to assess the long term solvency of the firm there are many standard ratios available such as Debt size ratio, Debt to equity ratio, Cash flow coverage ratio, Debt service as percentage of revenues, and so on. In this study the long term solvency of Broom County was analyzed using two key ratios namely Debt size ratio and Debt equity ratio. The formulas for the respective ratios are as follows, Debt Size Ratio = Total Debt/Total Asset Debt-Equity Ratio = Total Debt/Total Net Asset Debt Size Ratio measures the degree of financial leverage of the company, and generally higher values indicate higher financial risk. The ratio indicates whether the company is in a better financial position to service its total debt with its total assets. The Debt to Equity ratio is a measure of relative proportion of debt to shareholders’ equity that is used by the company to finance its assets. It is one of the indicators for long term solvency of a company. When the balance sheet of Broom County was analyzed for the years 2006 and 2007, it was found that Debt Ratio of Governmental Activities was 50.61% and 49.06% respectively. As discussed earlier, the acceptable value of this ratio should be less than 50% and the organization seems to have deleveraged their balance sheet in the year 2007 from 2006. The value of this ratio from Business Activities for both the years are less than 50% and are hence within tolerable limits.

Scholarly Literature Review HRD 468 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Scholarly Literature Review HRD 468 - Assignment Example This paper is going to review three articles with special focus on the quality management discussed within them and identify the major striking features of significance and conclude by examining the applicability of the total quality management to give solution. The paper, reviewed three study papers related to performance of the organization with relationship to quality. It realized that indeed, customers value quality and will appreciate a company that sticks to quality factors in its production process. Total quality management is a concept that has been with us for long time being developed and embraced by different companies with time. The concept is about introducing quality in all facets of production from design of a product to the ultimate sale of the product to the customer. Quality needs to be adopted in not only the production process but also the distribution, administration as well as customer service. It is therefore, not just a common practice within the private sector but also government agencies and administration (Vincent & Joel, 2004). This paper is going to review three articles with special focus on the quality management discussed within them and identify the major striking features of significance and conclude by examining the applicability of the total quality management to give solution. Gilles Grolleau, N. M. (2012). Is business performance related to the adorption of quality and environmental-related standards? Journal of environmnetal resource economics , 525-548. While trying to study how performance of businesses may be related to adoption of quality and environmental related standards with a sample of French firms confirmed that that the relationship may in fact be valid. However, they acknowledged the constraints of the data that their research faced. This apart from compromising the generalization of the research findings, also limited the validity of the research as a whole for implementation purposes (Gilles, Naoufel, &

Nipah Virus and the Potential for Bioterrorism

Nipah Virus and the Potential for Bioterrorism Nipah Virus and the Potential for Bioterrorism Introduction Bioterrorism is considered to be one of the most talked about issues with regard to national security since the inception of the new millennium. On September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorism struck the United States with the crashing and attempted crashing of airplanes into significant economic and political buildings. This act of terror was a significant beginning to fears of what was next from terrorist groups. Even though this was not the first, and definitely not the last, terrorist threat or attempt it was definitely the most profound and unquestionably caused fear, panic and social disruption much less economic issues globally. Within days of the 9/11 attacks the awareness of American vulnerability became more evident with the media publicity of the Anthrax scares. This brought about international concerns with bioterrorism as envelopes that were filled with anthrax spores were sent to political and media sources throughout the United States and twenty-two people were infected and five deaths occurred (Ryan Glarum, 2008). Nipah is just one of many viruses that are available to terrorist groups for development as a bioweapon. In 1999 this virus was first found and noted to be very easily disseminated to humans through inhalation and ingestion. Even though there are many potential pathogens available, the Nipah virus has proven itself to be one of the most dangerous and advantageous . As the Nipah virus progressed there was fear noted by workers, families and healthcare providers in southern Asia. With a mortality rate of 40% to 100% (Lam, 2002; World Health Organization [WHO], 2009) in infected areas, and an economic impact that cost several millions to Malaysias economy, this virus has potential for significant bioterrorism. Natural History The Nipah Virus (NiV), family paramyxoviridae, was first recognized in Malaysia, South Asia in late 1998 into Spring 1999. This disease was recognized when an outbreak of sickness and death occurred among pig farmers, it infected 265 people, with 105 deaths, a mortality rate of approximately 40% (Lam, 2002). This virus was new to the scientific community and first thought to be Japanese Encephalitis (JE) which had occurred in approximately the same location years earlier. JE was also noted to infect people that were around domesticated pigs, just like the currently identified Nipah Virus (Center for Disease Control [CDC], 2001). The Nipah virus was found to also have similar symptoms as those of the Hendra Virus which caused respiratory disease and encephalitis in Australia in 1994 (Fraser, 2009). The Nipah virus is considered by the CDC as a newly emerging pathogen that could be engineered for mass dissemination (Ryan Glarum, 2008; Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). Since the onset of the Nipah virus in 1999, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), there have been twelve significant outbreaks since the initial, with 202 persons infected and a loss of life of 146 individuals, mortality of over 72%. Two of these outbreaks, one in India in 2007 and one in Bangladesh in 2008 had mortality rates of 100%, showing the devastating effects of this virus (WHO, 2009). The initial investigation of the Nipah virus found that abattoir workers who dealt with pigs daily and those that were exposed through farming and transporting pigs were getting ill. As the investigation continued it found that the pigs were infecting the workers (zoonotic disease). After discovery, subsequently over 1.1 million pigs were disposed of to quell the transmission of the virus. This destruction of pigs was significantly devastating to the economy of Malaysia noting an estimated loss of $217 million dollars (Ryan Glarum, 2008, p. 104). Virus Transference The Nipah virus host was found to be pteropid bats (flying foxes), located in Australia and the southern areas of Asia. During expansion of farms toward the rainforests and the destruction of the rainforest for manufacturing and industry, many animals including bats had to relocate to survive. Many pig farmers in Malaysia also had large fruit orchards situated next to the pig enclosures, as growth of pig farming continued and the loss of habitat for bats persisted to change bats started to forage the nearby orchards for food. As this progression continued there was an increased chance of disease contamination to domestic animals from wildlife, and as such a significant increase in contact between pigs and bats. Therefore, greater opportunity for transmission of the Nipah virus (â€Å"Dr. Jonathan Epstein Returnsâ€Å", 2005). As the Nipah virus was investigated it was believed to have been transmitted to pigs from bats through the saliva, urine and feces of the bats which feed and nest in local orchards (â€Å"Dr. Jonathan Epstein Returnsâ€Å", 2005), near pig pens. This potential transmission probably occurred when bat secretions fell into the pig pens and were ingested by these domesticated animals. The initial human virus outbreak in Malaysia and Singapore was believed to have been from direct contact with sick pigs or their meat products, and possibly could have come from the consumption of contaminated fruit or juices from the orchards. As the virus progressed and research was done there was an established link noting person-to-person contamination through close contact (World Health Organization [WHO], 2009) Physiology of Exposure The Nipah virus seems to have many different clinical manifestations in individual animals and humans. There is a broad range of clinic signs that can point to virus infection that cause researchers and healthcare providers to not recognize patterns of initial infection, therefore not recognizing potential disease outbreaks. According to the WHO (2009), the incubation period (interval from infection to onset of symptoms) varies from four to 45 days. This significant range makes it incredibly hard to follow the virus between initial exposure and medical treatment. Recognizing that the person is showing signs of a virus, and narrowing down the specific virus, then treating it appropriately for an individual is a challenge but feasible. But with such a wide incubation period there is a possibility that viable information could be lost or not noticed. The physiological symptoms of this virus in humans is characterized by non-specific signs and symptoms to include severe headache, fever, vomiting, myalgia (muscular pain) disorientation, respiratory diseases, neurological deficits and encephalitis and in many cases may cause coma or death (Center for Infectious Disease Research Policy [CIDRAP], 2009). In pigs there is characterization of signs and symptoms depending on the age of the animal. The basic signs noted are fever, shortness of breath, muscle twitching, trembling, rear leg weakness, severe coughing, open-mouth breathing, abnormal posturing and convulsions (CIDRAP, 2009). After initial exposure and treatment follow-up research was done and in this study it was noted that there were relapses in clinic symptoms to include encephalitis up to twenty-two months later, without re-exposure. The research and that an estimated 160 patients who recovered from acute encephalitis and 89 patients who experienced asymptomatic infection received follow-up care for ‘late-onset encephalitis (neurological manifestations occurring for the first time at ten or more weeks after initial infection) or ‘relapsed encephalitis (neurological manifestations after recovery from acute encephalitis) (Halpin Mungall, 2007, p. 290). Host Sources The Nipah Virus source comes from Pteropus fruit bats (AKA: Flying Foxes), which are found in Southern Asia and Australia. In 1997 fruit bats were noted to begin foraging on flowers and nectar in trees located near orchards contiguous to infected areas (Cobey, 2005). Fruit bats were found to be the natural source of this virus and caused the transfer of the virus to pigs and human beings. As domesticated pigs were sold for breeding and transferred to other farms the virus was quickly disseminated further throughout southern Asia (Cobey, 2005). Possible Use in Biowarfare Biowarfare, and in this day and age bioterrorism, is a threat that began before the birth of Christ. According to Dr. Michael D. Phillips, M.D. one of the first recorded incidents [of bioterrorism]was in Mesopotamia. The Assyrians employed rye ergot, an element of the fungus Claviceps purpurea, which contains mycotoxins. Rye ergot was used by Assyria to poison the wells of their enemies, with limited success (Phillips, 2005, p. 32). Use of pathogens to induce sickness, death or terror has continued until present time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has listed the Nipah virus as a critical biological agent, Category C. Category C agents are emerging pathogens that could be engineered for mass dissemination in the future because of: * Availability * Ease of production and dissemination * Potential for high morbidity and mortality rates and major health impact (Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.,  ¶ 3; (Ryan Glarum, 2008, p. 105)) With this categorization the virus is a living pathogen that can be developed as a bioweapon with the right knowledge, and equipment. For the virus to be weaponized it needs to be purified, stabilized and properly sized. Since this is a living virus the bioterrorist agent can be replicated once disseminated (Ryan Glarum, 2008). At this time, there is no information about how this virus could be manufactured to become a bioterrorist agent, but with the right knowledge the potential is there. Production Methods Since the Nipah virus has proven to be disseminated through secretions from bats and pigs, and shown to cause severe infection and death it can potentially be used as a bioterrorist agent with little changes in its basic state. If the excretions from infected bats in palm juice can cause infection and death then there is ease in distribution with a significant amount of virus. Even with these basic distribution methods there is information about the Nipah virus and its compounds being published. As knowledge continues be found about the virus and information availability of the compounds there is potential for virus manipulation for maximum threat to animals and humans to induce fear and panic. Information such as this is noted in an article by Medical News Today, (2005). This article states that UCLA scientists have revealed how the Nipah virus infiltrates human cells. The article further states the virus exploits a protein that is essential to embryonic development to enter cells and attack. The virus must infect a cell by binding to a viral-specific receptor and once that is done penetrates the cell. The article actually gives the receptor name as Ephrin-B2, and is found to be the key to unlocking these dangerous cells. If this information is so easily accessible and is available it allows terrorists groups with the knowledge and expertise to manipulate the virus for dissemination and extreme virulence. The Nipah virus is still a relatively new virus and steps are slowly being made in understanding this infant virus. As of this time there is very little knowledge about how effective this virus would be or what would be needed to make it infective. With bioterrorist there is always a concern with the storage and stability of the virus for development and weaponization. As developments are made and intelligence is gathered with regard to potential agents there will be a concern with any viral pathogen. Transmissibility Animal-to-human Animal (pig) to human transmissibility was the first noted issue with regard to the detection of the Nipah virus in 1999. As stated earlier the virus spread rapidly and was found to have started with pig farmers and abattoir workers that worked closely and handled these animals. As the virus progressed and workers died it was found that pigs in these farms had been coughing loudly (bark type of cough), and nerve damage was becoming prevalent. In a short amount of time approximately five percent of these animals died and the illness was spreading significantly (Pearl, 2006). Also transmissibility has been noted from non-specific animal contact put through the ingestion of date palm juice taken from the trees that bats nest and feed. As the fruit tree workers and farmers gather the palm juice through clay pots bats drink from the pots and transfer saliva to the nectar (Pearl, 2006). Person-to-person Many of the articles written on the Nipah virus states that there is no evidence that there is transmissibility of the virus from person-to-person. In contrast, according to a research investigation done during a Bangladeshi outbreak in 2004, there is definitive evidence that the Nipah virus can be transmitted from person-to-person (Gurley et al., July 2007). According to the research, subsequent investigations in India and Bangladesh have suggested that Nipah virus may have been transmitted from person-to-person. During an outbreak in 2001in India, 75% of the patients, including fourteen healthcare workers, had a history of hospital exposure to patients infected with Nipah virus (Gurley et al., July 2007), with no other exposure risks noted. The exposure, and subsequent virus, occurred with persons who lived with or cared for the patients, and persons who were in close contact for a significant amount of time. According to a research article published by the CDC, the Nipah virus can be transmitted from person-to-person. The article states, in a densely populated area a lethal virus could rapidly spread before effective interventions are implemented. This spread would provide the seed for a substantial regional or global public health problem (Gurley et al., 2007, p. 1036). According to Gurley et al., 2007 there is significant evidence that person-to-person contact will cause infection. The person-to-person transmissibility factors include having (1) touched or received a cough or sneeze in the face, (2) any contact with someone who later died, was febrile, unconscious, or had respiratory difficulty, and (3) visited the home, and possibly, the village an infected person. The most significant evidence of person-to-person infections was with a religious leader where twenty-two persons who had became infected after close contact. The religious leader was moved to his home and eight members of his household became infected. Two brothers who lived a significant distance away were infected after only a six hour visitation, son-in-law and daughter who lived only about one hour away and eleven other followers of the leader contracted the disease after contact (Gurley et al., 2007) with no noted other infection means. Surface-to-person To this date there is no evidence of any transfer of the virus to persons from surface contact, in fact how long the virus remains infectious on environmental surfaces is not known. In an article written by (Gurley et al., 2007) collection of 468 environmental specimens were gathered through swabbing of potential surfaces that included walls, bed frames, mattresses, floors and utensils in hospital rooms and residences of infected individuals. Also collected were swabs from trees, fruits, excrement and other surfaces around possible bat foraging sites. With all of this gathered specimens the only information obtained was that the infected individuals shed the virus into the environment, showing potential for transmission, but no evidence was found that surfaces caused any positive infection to another person. Potential for contagion and considerations relative to Biodefense The Nipah virus has the potential to be a very detrimental bioweapon of choice for domestic or international terrorists. With the virus being zoonotic (disease which can be transmitted to humans from animals, [â€Å"Zoonosisâ€Å", 2009]), which effects animals and humans, and the ease of transmission from the saliva and urine of fruit bats to these two groups the potential for a Potential for contagion and considerations relative to biodefense According to Kortepeter and Parker (Kortepeter Parker, 1999), for a biological agent to be used for a greatest plausible occurrence, an agent must have specific properties: * the agent should be highly lethal and easily produced in large quantities * Given that the aerosol route is the most likely for a large-scale attack, stability in aerosol and capability to be dispersed (17,000 to 5,000 nanometers (nm) particle size) are necessary * being communicable from person-to-person, and * having no treatment or vaccine In using the above criteria the Nipah virus would make a credible biological threat for a domestic or international terrorist group. Host bats being plentiful in Australia and southern Asia would make it easy to obtain the saliva, feces or urine of these hosts for initial development of the virus. The Nipah virus being 150 to 200 nm in diameter and 10,000 to 10,040 nm long (CIDRAP, 2009,  ¶ 3), it could be used in an aerosol form for dispersement. According to Gurley et al., there is significant evidence that there is person-to-person communicability and according to the WHO, there are currently no drugs or vaccines available to treat Nipah virus infection. Intensive supportive care with treatment of symptoms is the main approach to managing the infection in people (2009,  ¶8 ). Conclusion The Nipah virus should be a concern for any government as a potential for a bioterrorist attack. As with the 9/11 and the anthrax attacks in 2001 there could be significant fear, panic, economic issues and social disruption if this virus was used. With a mortality rate of 40% to 100% (Lam, 2002; WHO, 2009), and an incubation period of up to 45 days (WHO, 2009), this could definitely be a pathogen of choice for terrorists. The ease of access to the virus itself from fruit bats, to pigs and to humans, not to mention the transmissibility ease through inhalation and ingestion, makes this the perfect biological weapon. The disease this virus manifests, from flu type symptoms to severe encephalitis, will cause significant fear to the public and will stress healthcare facilities if a large outbreak occurs. This virus also has no known cure as of this date, even though there are developments in that direction. The Nipah virus needs to continue to be monitored and treatment options along with vaccine development needs to be continuous until this threat is diminished. References Biological Warfare. (2009). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 25, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Japanese Encephalitis. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/jencephalitis/qa.htm Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Emergency Preparedness and Response: Bioterrorism; Category C Agents. Retrieved from http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp Center for Infectious Disease Research Policy. (2009). Nipah Virus. Retrieved December 25, 2009, from http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/ag-biosec/anim-disease/nipah.html Cobey, S. (2005). Nipah Virus: Natural History. Retrieved from The Henipavirus Ecology Collaborative Research Group: http://www.henipavirus.org/virus_and_host_info/nipah_virus_natural_history.htm Dr. Jonathan Epstein Returns from Studies of Nipah Virus in Malaysia. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.wildlifetrust.org/news/66-dr_jonathan_epstein_returns_from_studies_of_nipah_virus_in_malaysia Enserink, M. (2004, February 20). Nipah virus (or a cousin) strikes again. Science, 303.5661, 1121. Retrieved from Academic OneFile. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. . Field, H., Young, P., Yob, J. M., Mills, J., Hall, L., Mackenzie, J. (2001). The natural history of Hendra and Nipah viruses. Microbes and Infection, 3, 307-314. doi: 10.1016/S1286-4579(01)01384-3 Fraser, L. (2009, November 16, 2009). Is Hendra and Hipah a threat to US?. Ticker. Retrieved from http://www.theticker.org/about/2.8220/is-hendra-and-nipah-a-threat-to-us-1.2085160 Gurley, E. S., Montgomery, J. M., Hossain, M. J., Bell, M., Azad, A. K., Islam, M. R., Rahim Molla, M. A., Breiman, R. F. (July 2007). Person-toperson transmission of Nipah virus in a Bangladeshi Community. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/13/7/1031.htm Gurley, E. S., Montgomery, J. M., Hossain, M. J., Bell, M., Azad, A. K., Rota, P. A., Lowe, L., Breiman, R. F. (2007). Person-to-person transmission of Nipah Virus in the Banglashi Community. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/eid Halpin, K., Mungall, B. A. (2007). Recent progress in henipavirus research. Science Direct; Com ¶tive Immunology, Microbiology Infectious Diseases, 30, 287-307. Kortepeter, M. G., Parker, G. W. (1999). Potential biological weapons and threats. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/kortepeter.htm Lam, S. (2002). Nipah virus A potential agent of bioterrorism? (Antiviral research 57). Retrieved from Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com.lib-proxy.jsu.edu/science?_ob=MImg_imagekey=B6T2H-47MJ4XH-3-1_cdi=4919_user=446480_orig=search_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003_sk=999429998view=cwchp=dGLbVtb-zSkzSmd5=464c2420befda40589fa6aef4b45cc20ie=/sdarticle.pdf Lowrey, C. H. (2010, February 10, 2010). Application of Gene Therapy Strategies to Offensive and Defensive Biowarfare (White Paper). Retrieved from Dartmouth Medical School: http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/ethreats/whitepapers/Lowery.html Medical News Today. (2005). UCLS scientists reveal how Nipah virus infects cells. Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27038.php Pearl, M. C. (2006, September 2006). The potential pandemic youve never heard of. Discover, 27 (9), 26-27. Phillips, M. B. (2005). Bioterrorism: A Brief History. Northeast Florida Medicine, 32-35. Retrieved from www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2005journals/bioterrorism/bioterrorism_history.pdf Ryan, J. R., Glarum, J. F. (2008). Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Inc.. Wong, K. T., Shieh, W., Abdullah, W., Guarner, J., Goldsmith, C. S., Chua, K. B., Lam, S. K., Zaki, S. R. (2002, December). Nipah virus infection: Pathology and pathogenesis of an emerging paramyxoviral zoonosis. American Journal of Pathology, 161 (6), 2153-2167. doi: Retrieved from World Health Organization. (2009). Chronology of Nipah virus outbreaks. Retrieved from World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/nipah_chronology_en.pdf World Health Organization. (2009). Nipah Virus. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs262/en/ Zoonosis. (2009). In Zoonosis. Retrieved from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3search=zoonosis

Corporate Control :: essays research papers

Title: Corporate Control Author: Annonymous Rating: 0 Rate this Paper It seems that there is an ever-increasing trend in our society. Big corporations are becoming more and more influential in our lives. As they gain more and more muscle in our government they also invade our schools and many other facets of our lives. Perhaps the most disturbing area of potential influence, however, is corporate control of the media. Can the American media uphold its values of free press under pressure from big corporations? Can they continue to present the absolute truth? The simple answer, especially in my opinion, is no. The movie The Insider provides us with an excellent case to back that point of view. Perhaps one of the biggest stories of this decade has been the tobacco industry. We saw them stand before Congress and tell the world that cigarettes were not addictive. The industry was able to â€Å"lawyer† its way out of trouble time and time again. They essentially used legal maneuvers, and certainly money, to keep the truth from the American people. Fin ally, we saw all that come to an end. When Jeff Wigand decided it was time to tell the truth, he put everything he valued at risk. He stood to loose his family, any chance at a job, and quite possibly his life. He knew all these things and still he went on, because he thought he could make a difference. He knew that his testimony would never be heard in a court of law, so where could he turn. The answer: the fourth and fifth estates, or the press and television. Every night millions of Americans sit down and watch the nightly news or read the paper. We know that we will be told all the days news, that we will be educated about what is happening in the world around us. We also know that we will be updated on issues that we care about as individuals and a society. Another delivery mechanism for information is television magazine shows like 60 Minutes. People know that when Mike Wallace talks to them, they should listen. They can also look at his reputation and know that he is telling the truth. Wigand put faith in that fact. Wigand agreed to do an interview with 60 Minutes because he knew that people would listen. He knew that the absolute truth would finally be out in the open, and that it would come from a source that people would believe.

Animal Farm Political Speech Assignment

I once stood next to all of you, helped and taught you all how to farm, how to read and write. I was very committed back then. I came up with all the different plans that benefited the Animal Farm, such as the windmill. Until a few months later after the rebellion, Napoleon who had always opposed me, got Jealous. So, he chased me out with those bewildered dogs, stole my plans for the windmill, blamed me for everything, and corrupted Minimalism as he took total control ever the farm.Before my expulsion, you all saw me drawing and planning out every detail for the windmill, hoping to help out all the animals by having less work to be done. Then, I was chased out, and I wasn't appreciated for all my hard work that I was devoted in. Instead, Napoleon stole my credits and even called me a thief for stealing â€Å"his† plans and a â€Å"traitor† who was allied with our enemy, Mr.. Jones. How could he come up with such a plan and pretend to oppose it?Let us say that If I reall y did stole the plans, he loud of put me legally on trial, instead of using those untamed dogs to go after me, and almost taken my life. After Napoleon exiled me, I could not even get near the farm since the dogs were alert of me. As for the windmill that night, It was because of a storm. Just think about it, how could it be possible for a pig like me to budge a huge bolder, how could have I even push and destroy it. Just think for a moment for all the details.It took you all and the assistance of Boxer to slowly lift up a stone and you expect me to move it in he dark, and destroy all of your hard work? Come on Comrades! I know you all questioned the truth when you first heard the news. You all had been brainwashed by Squealer, who could persuade and confuse people to believe that black is infect white. After I was gone, Napoleon took hold of all the power, and used it unfairly, corrupting our Minimalism. First, he changed and disobeyed the â€Å"original† Seven Commandments. He broke the rule that stated, † All animals are equal,† He told you al that working on Sunday afternoons â€Å"was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half. † He seemed to offer a choice, but who would want to go hungry when they do not even have enough food for themselves right now. You all had gone back to those miserable lives under Mr.. Jones. Look closely, you all will realize that the life right now is no different from the previous one, or perhaps, only worse.Napoleon also broke the sixth commandment, which stated â€Å"No animal shall kill another animal†. But see for yourselves, did he really follow this commandment? Although it seems as if he did follow the rules, but he did not go over a process to legally punish animals, instead he used authority and power to kill or execute other animals who oppose them or went against them. Isn't this basically the same as killing other animal? Com rades, take a look closely at all the things that are happening around you all, use your logic and think about the truth.Do you all really think that I am the one who Is going against our Minimalism? You all know how I value our equalities and how I value the treatment we get. It should be the power, authority, and the benefits all for himself. Does he really care for the well being of you all? He only cares how much you contribute to the farm, and how he can exploit you all. You should all trust me and come under my protection. We should all join together and rebel, to once again step back on to the road that leads to our dream society, our Animal Farm that we all longed for.

Jeffrey Dahmer Research Paper Essay

Jeffrey Dahmer was a notorious serial killer in the late 70’s throughout the early 90’s. What made him stand out from most serial killer’s was what he did to the bodies of his victims. During this research paper, I will cover his childhood life, what led to his lifestyle of killing and cannibalism and also the crimes that were committed during his murderous acts. I will also compare what theories relate to Jeffrey Dohmer and what could possibly be the reason why he did what he did. Childhood life Jeffrey Dahmer was born in Milwaukee on May 21, 1960 with two loving parents by the name of Lionel and Joyce Dahmer. He seemed like an ordinary child until the age of six, when he had a minor surgery and also when his mother gave birth to his brother. This is when his self-confidence seemed to be lacking. He started to isolate himself from other people and became very anti-social. He went from an outgoing social child to a loner who was uncommunicative and withdrawn. By his early teenage years, he seemed disengaged, tense and friendless (biography.com). In 1966, the Dahmer family moved to Bath, Ohio where Jeffrey’s insecurities continued to grow and his shyness kept him from making friends. Here is where he became fascinated with animals and started collecting road kill and stripping the animal’s carcasses and saving the bones (crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm). He began dissecting animals near his home in the woods on a regular basis. High School/ Young Adulthood Dahmer continued his anti-social behaviors throughout the start of his years at Revere High School. He maintained average grades and seemed to be a fairly normal teenager. He worked on the school newspaper but also developed a bad drinking problem. He was known as a model student, respectful, polite, and well groomed. Overtime, he became less interested in school and his social life really decreased. In the summer of 1978, Dahmer graduated from high school. His parents divorced just short of his 18th birthday. After high school Dahmer enrolled at Ohio State University and spent most of his time skipping classes and getting drunk. After a couple of semesters, he decided to drop out of college and to return home with his father. After an ultimatum was given to him by his father, he decided to join the Army. He signed up on a six year contract, but after two years he was discharged due to his drunken behaviors (crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm). Murder #1 Dahmer struggled with his own homosexual desires, mixed with his need to fulfill his appalling fantasies. His first murder was that of a hitchhiker he picked up. He was 19 year old Steven Hicks. He invited him to his father’s house in which they had some alcoholic drinks and then engaged in sex. Following their sexual acts, when Hicks was ready to leave, Dahmer bashed him in the head with a barbell and killed him. He cut up his victim’s body and placed it in garbage bags. He buried all Hicks body parts in the neighboring woods surrounding his father’s home. It would be nine years later before committing his second murder. In this particular murder, some of the additional crimes committed against the victim are, false imprisonment and kidnapping. False imprisonment is when someone reasonably believes they are restricted from movement. Steven Hicks voluntarily went with Dahmer to his father’s house. But when Hicks was ready to leave, at the point before Dahmer bashed Hicks in the head, I believe he felt he was restricted to leave at that brief moment before being killed. He is also guilty of kidnapping because Hicks was restricted from leaving by Dahmer before the attack took place. Murder #2 Dahmer’s second murder occurred in September of 1987 when he picked up a 26 year old man by the name of Steven Tuomi at a bar. Dahmer claimed he killed him on impulse and later stated he had no memory of committing this crime. After this particular murder, Dahmer’s murderous rampage begins to occur sporadically. Two murders in 1988, another in 1989 and his method were consistent to picking up his victim’s at gay bars. He had sex with all of his victim’s before and sometimes after killing them. Final Murder/ Arrest In May of 1990, he moved out of his grandmother’s house and into the apartment that later became notorious for his killings. He committed four more murders before the end of 1990 and two more in April of 1991, and another in May of 1991 (answers.com). On May 27, 1991, 14 year old Konerak Sinthasomphone was seen on the street, wandering naked, obviously under the influence of drugs and bleeding heavily. Two females from the neighborhood spotted him and called 911. Dahmer approached and tried to convince the women he was ok and attempted to take the boy away. The women stopped him until police arrived. Dahmer told responding police the Konerak was his 19 year old boyfriend and they had an argument while drinking. The police were convinced of Dahmer’s story and they released the boy back to him against the two women’s will. Later that night, Dahmer killed and dismembered Konerak’s body and kept his skull as a souvenir (answers.com). In this particular murder, Dahmer was also guilty of false imprisonment and kidnapping. The 14 year old boy Konerak was attempting to escape from Dahmer until he convinced the police that everything was ok and proceeded to take the drugged boy back with him. At this point kidnapping took place because Konerak was restricted from leaving when he was taken by Dahmer back to his place. False imprisonment also takes place because Konerak felt he could not leave from Dahmer’s captivity once he got hold of him again. The police in my opinion were guilty of Negligence by not further investigating the incident properly. The legal Definition of Negligence is conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. In the summer of 1991, Dahmer was killing approximately one person per week. Dahmer came up with a theory that he could turn his victim’s into zombies. He attempted to accomplish this by drilling a hole in his victim’s head while their still alive and injecting hydrochloric acid into the frontal lobe area of their brains with a large syringe (answers.com). Surrounding neighbors of Dahmer constantly smelled bad odors coming from his residence. They also heard sounds such as drills or power saws. Final Attempt/ Arrest On July 22, 1991, Dahmer enticed another man into his home in attempt to make him another victim of his sick fantasies. Tracy Edwards was the name of the potential of Dahmer. There was a struggle between Dahmer and Edwards when Dahmer attempted to handcuff his wrist together. Dahmer had him at knife point and forced him into his bedroom. When Edwards saw the pictures of the mangled bodies on the walls and noticed the terrible smell coming from a large blue barrel. He punched Dahmer in the face, kicked him in the stomach, and ran out the door and escaped (Answers.com). He ran down the streets with handcuffs still hanging from one hand and waved down a patrol car. The police were led to Dahmer’s house by Edwards. When police arrived, they saw the photographs of the mangled victim’s bodies and at this time Dahmer was placed under arrest. While investigating, police found a human head in the refrigerator and multiple pictures of severed body parts. Further searching continued and police found three additional severed heads, severed hands, penises, and multiple human remains. This was the breaking point at which the story of Jeffrey Dahmer gained notoriety (Answers.com). This is when the public found out about accusations of his practicing necrophilia and cannibalism. Jeffrey Dahmer was indicted on 17 counts of murder and later reduced to 15. The attempt murder of Edwards was not tried in court. Dahmer’s trial began on January 30, 1992. The evidence against him was so incriminating, Dahmer plead not guilty due to reason of insanity. His trial lasted only 2 weeks and he was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and was sentenced to 15 consecutive life terms. He expressed remorse for his acts and said he wished he was dead. In May of 1992, he was extradited to Ohio, where he pleaded guilty to the murder of his first victim, Stephen Hicks (Answers.com). Dahmer’s Death While Dahmer was serving his time at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, he was attacked on two different occasions by fellow prisoners. The first time was when he was returning from a church service. He survived that attack with superficial injuries. The second attack occurred when he was doing janitorial work in the prison gym, he and another inmate was attacked and severely beaten with a broomstick handle on November 28, 1994 by an inmate, Christopher Scarver. Dahmer died of severe head trauma while on his way to the hospital. Dahmer’s brain was then kept an examined for study purposes. Internal factors Internal factors that could have determined why he was subjective to commit such crime were his anti-social behavior. This behavior leads a person to more likely, lie, steal, assault others, and commit violent acts of crime. Anti-social behavior poses a great risk to a person’s physical and mental health. It also puts a person in a higher risk to use drugs, alcohol, and also very promiscuous behavior. Some external factors that could have subjected him to commit his violent acts were his relationships with the outside world. He felt alone and isolated from the outside world which made him want to have control over it by taking in victims and giving himself power over them. I don’t think there is a specific theory that can pinpoint why Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did. The only theory that I believe fits with his behaviors was the fact that he was anti-social and that’s what leads him in the direction he chose to go in. An anti-social person can lead them to a life of crime and violent behaviors. The behavior of Jeffrey Dahmer did fall in this category and his actions that which a normal person would not do shows his anti-social behavior very likely played a big part in his decisions. Theories are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt but they do make sense to an extent and help lead us in the right direction to understand why people that commit crime do what they do. These theories are vital to learning and understanding because it can help a Criminologists determine why Criminal’s such as Jeffrey Dahmer do what they do. Jeffrey Dahmer seemed to have void inside of him that he needed to fill. He felt empowered and satisfied when he took in his victims killing and mutilating their bodies. He was sane because he planned and knew what he was doing when committing the acts and there was definitely intent. Conclusion Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the most notorious serial killer’s today because of the way he went about his crimes. His victims’ families will be haunted by the actions taken by Dahmer. His actions were very disturbing and he needed to be removed from this earth. He is now dead and gone and people in the surrounding areas where he caused all that pain will no longer have to worry about him. Work Cited www.biography.com/people/jeffrey-dahmer-9264755 www.answers.cm/topic/jeffrey-dahmer