Writing Experience Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Writing Experience - Essay Example The essay "Writing Experience" presents the story about the writing experience. The author tells that he started developing the art and zeal of creative writing at the tender age in elementary school. He could learn and practice writing using anything that could draw or make simple lines.I could sit at my desk in school and trace out simple letters on gray papers that afterward smudged when I engaged eraser harshly on the paper. My conscious was vivid; I wanted to emerge the best creative writer in Kindergarten class. I believed in creative writing. It had taken control of my thinking, and I remained at its mercy.My desire to excel in creative writing grew in me throughout the years in school. I developed the zeal to write better-compared to authors in the vast number of books, which I read. I had become jealous of other creative writers. Each day, I could write many times and compare my work with other notable authors. I was so passionate about writing better than the existing liter ary scholars that my mother had to intervene. Mother informed me that if I could engage my soul in writing, I would be the most famous literary writer than authors of the books that I read. Henceforth, I believed in the company of my soul in writing an appealing and understandable literature. I trusted in my mother’s words and later came to the realization that human mind has the power of letting words flow naturally during writing. I also learned that I would have the most interesting and convincing voice in my literary works.

Advocating for the Inclusion of a Person Essay Example for Free

Advocating for the Inclusion of a Person Essay Some of the greatest medical advancements in the modern age involve the use of many different types of radiation. Radiation therapy is used in treating multiple different types of cancer, and radiation from certain elements are put in X-ray tubes to save countless lives and prevent permanent injury wherever possible. Many organisations also use it for security, as well as the general use in the everyday home. These advancements and many more were based on the work of Marie Curie, renowned female physics researcher. To make a list of people that changed the world for the better we need a way to separate the great, from the truly amazing. One important factor is that they helped people in their time period, and this is made more impressive if they sacrificed themselves to do this. Their work needs to still be felt today, either directly through their efforts, or from advances that have built on what they started. Finally, if the person has been recognised for other awards then that obviously bolsters their position as they have already proven to others that they are worthy of recognition. To change the world for the better, you must do something that helps people. Curie spent all of her working life developing technologies that were used in medicine, directly helping the people around her. She focused most of her energies on discovering, and then researching the properties of Radium and Polonium1. The properties of these elements, Radium in particular, were used to burn away diseased cells in the body2, which we now know to include cancer. As well as this, she also helped make X-Rays more accessible and discovered further ways in which they could be used. This is demonstrated in the work Curie did with her eldest daughter during WWI, setting up 20 mobile X-ray units3 and teaching people how to operate them, as well as taking their own unit to the Western Front. Throughout the war over 1 million people were X-rayed, helping doctors save lives and prevent people from being permanently maimed. In her later life Curie was the director of the Radium Institute in Paris. She recognised that science had become a more specialised field and organised the laboratory with this in mind. It was a major institute devoted to the study of radium and its properties, but it did so by separating scientists into small groups that focused their energies on a particular aspect of radiology. These efforts increased the rate of new innovations and increased our overall knowledge of radiation’s uses and dangers. It is these dangers that constitute part of her posthumous bid for this title. While not essential to be a person who changed the world for the good, if you put yourself through difficult trials and tribulations society puts your efforts in higher regard, as others are less likely to do so. For example, many people would say that although Bill Gates helped the world with the advent of Microsoft, but for all of his contributions the world values him less because of the wealth he has accumulated. In complete contrast to this, the research Curie did that has helped billions of people over the years since her discoveries ended up killing her. Her death in itself helped people, as she was likely the first person to die from radiation poisoning it became apparent that these elements could be dangerous in high dosages and adequate care must be taken. While it cannot be denied that she won a substantial amount of money from receiving two Nobel prizes as well as other awards she put this back into her research as can be observed through her campaigning to receive funds so she could afford another gram of radium for her research4. During the first World War Marie Curie created a real use for the more reliable and effective X-tubes she had developed. To help fund these 20 lifesaving devices, Curie sold off the gold Nobel prize medals she and her husband won4. After they were sent to the Front it became apparent that the medical staff were not aware of how to fully take advantage of the technology, as it had not yet entered most hospitals. To help relieve this issue, Ms Curie herself joined these X-ray units and travelled the Western Front. She did this on a battlefield in which it is estimated that around 8 million people died on over the course of the war. This put her in the way of much harmful radiation with none of the protection that is offered today, and with less developed X-ray machines that created a greater amount of harmful rays. There had already been mutterings of the harmful effects of exposure to these conditions, so it cannot be claimed she took these risks in ignorance of the dangers. Nevertheless, she continued contributing to the war effort, saving more lives than any brilliant tactical manoeuvre which have attracted far more praise. We still use Curies research today in the treating of many different types of illnesses. It was her initial mothering of Radiation that has meant that these discoveries have been possible in the current timeframe. While it cannot be doubted that if it wasn’t for her we still would have discovered some of these properties, we would potentially be many years behind in the battle against cancer, which would mean hundreds more unnecessary deaths every year. X-rays still form a big part of treatment plans in hospitals worldwide5 with it being the main method to quickly look at a person’s skeletal structure and diagnose broken bones as well as finding foreign objects inside someone. While there are other more accurate methods of finding information about peoples interior, they are more time consuming and often not suited to trauma cases where the line between life and death is mere seconds wide. The research into radiation has also been applied for other more mundane purposes. Some of Marie Curie’s research is used at airports in the X-ray scanners that protect over 100 million people every year6 from potential threats. It has the unique ability of being able to scan through all bags quickly without damaging the contents, revealing everything that could be potentially dangerous. Radiation is also used in high quality smoke detectors and luminous watches. Other uses include the tubes of some older TV’s, without which we may never have invested the resources into developing better, more cost effective means of producing what is today such an essential part of everyday life7. Curie’s life has also taught people about the dangers faced by scientists and how their work can lead to many different types of illnesses. It is because we know this we can now protect ourselves from the possible harmful effects of radiation. Whilst not essential criteria to be added to this list, if other organisations have recognised her contribution for their prizes, then we should take their considerations into account. Because she has qualified for these other awards it adds credibility to the claim that she has changed the world for the better. Throughout her life, Curie received many awards, most notably two Nobel Prizes, in Physics and Chemistry, she was the first to receive two Nobel prizes, and the only woman to have done so to this day. She has also been given the Davy Medal, for a discovery in Chemistry (Discovery of new elements), as well as the Matteucci Medal for making fundamental discoveries in Physics. This means that she has actually done ground-breaking work, creating an entirely new field – the field of Radiology, which today is a significant medical specialty. She has also been given the Elliot Cresson Medal for her discovery of the properties of Radon and applying them to the use of X-rays, m aking them more effective and easier to use, as well as the application of her discoveries to the treatment of cancer. 8 To be included on a list of people that have changed the world for the better is a huge honour. We all like to think that we have made a difference, but to be so committed that you will forgo your own safety takes a special kind of person. Marie Curie demonstrated to the world that she is this person. In addition, her efforts have been felt for many years after her life, and will continue to be appreciated indefinitely. Throughout her life Marie Curie worked tirelessly for the expansion of scientific knowledge in the area of radiation, and found many uses for her discoveries. Her life, and even her death helps mankind to save the lives of thousands of people every day and this is why she should be recognised as having one of the greatest positive impacts on the world to date. References http://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.php#q19 http://www.aip.org/history/curie/contents_text.htm http://www.biographyonline.net/scientists/marie-curie.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=madamecurie http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-marie-curie-biography.htm http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com/To-Z/X-ray-Machine.html#b http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2009/bts019_09/html/bts019_09.html http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q824.html

Countee Cullen :: essays research papers

Countee Cullen Countee Cullen (Porter) was considered by many to be the most talented of the Harlem Renaissance poets. Cullen was a novelist and a playwright, but he was known by most as a poet. He was born on March 30, 1903 in New York. Cullen was adopted at some point between the time of his birth and 1918. By 1921, he changed his last name to Cullen, from his adopted mothers last name. He attended DeWitt Clinton High School between (1918- 1921). During this time he was editor of his schools newspaper and of the magazine Magpie, and during High School he wrote his first poetry that received notice. He also attended New York University for four years. Not much is known of the early years of his childhood up until 1918. Between the time of Cullen’s birth 1918 he was adopted by Rev. Frederick A.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  and Carolyn Bell (Mitchell) Cullen of the Salem Methodist Episcopal Church in Harlem. It is unknown how old Cullen was when he got adopted. Rev. Cullen regained Countee Cullen’s faith back in himself by getting him to understand that any goal or dream that he had to fulfill it. Countee received much help both mentally and physically from his adopted father, it is said that if Countee would not have been adopted by the Reverend he would not have gone as far as he eventually did. Countee Cullen was considered one of the most talented of the Harlem Renaissance poets. A lot of his poetry was written during his high school and college years. During high school Cullen won his first contest, a citywide competition, with the poem â€Å"I Have a Rendezvous with Life,† a non-racial poem. Cullen was also the editor of his high school paper and a literary magazine Magpie. He furthered his wisdom and education at Countee Cullen :: essays research papers Countee Cullen Countee Cullen (Porter) was considered by many to be the most talented of the Harlem Renaissance poets. Cullen was a novelist and a playwright, but he was known by most as a poet. He was born on March 30, 1903 in New York. Cullen was adopted at some point between the time of his birth and 1918. By 1921, he changed his last name to Cullen, from his adopted mothers last name. He attended DeWitt Clinton High School between (1918- 1921). During this time he was editor of his schools newspaper and of the magazine Magpie, and during High School he wrote his first poetry that received notice. He also attended New York University for four years. Not much is known of the early years of his childhood up until 1918. Between the time of Cullen’s birth 1918 he was adopted by Rev. Frederick A.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  and Carolyn Bell (Mitchell) Cullen of the Salem Methodist Episcopal Church in Harlem. It is unknown how old Cullen was when he got adopted. Rev. Cullen regained Countee Cullen’s faith back in himself by getting him to understand that any goal or dream that he had to fulfill it. Countee received much help both mentally and physically from his adopted father, it is said that if Countee would not have been adopted by the Reverend he would not have gone as far as he eventually did. Countee Cullen was considered one of the most talented of the Harlem Renaissance poets. A lot of his poetry was written during his high school and college years. During high school Cullen won his first contest, a citywide competition, with the poem â€Å"I Have a Rendezvous with Life,† a non-racial poem. Cullen was also the editor of his high school paper and a literary magazine Magpie. He furthered his wisdom and education at

Hate Crimes and The Mitchell v. Wisconsin Decision Essay -- Hate Crime

Hate Crimes and The Mitchell v. Wisconsin Decision The American Heritage Dictionary defines hate as intense dislike or animosity. However, defining hate as the basis for a crime is not as easy without possibly jeopardizing constitutional rights in the process. Hate crime laws generally add enhanced punishments to existing statues. A hate crime law seeks to treat a crime, if it can be demonstrated that the offense was a hate crime differently from the way it would be treated under ordinary criminal law. Since the 1980s, the problem of hate crimes has attracted increasing research attention, especially from criminologists and law enforcement personnel who have focused primarily on documenting the prevalence of the problem and formulation criminal justice responses to it. Lawmakers have passed legislation to encourage data collection and attach enhanced penalties to hate crimes at both state and federal levels.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When Americans are assaulted merely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender, or disability, the law should be as tough on their assailants as it currently is tough on criminals who attack based on racial, religious, or ethnic bias. Yet only in rare circumstances can the federal government investigate and prosecute hate violence against gays, lesbians, or bisexuals. Attempts have been made to reach a definition of hate crime, including that it is a crime, most commonly violence, motivated by prejudice, bias or hatred towards a particular group of which the victim is rarely significant to the offender and is most commonly a stranger to him or her. The current law (18 U.S.C. 245) permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by bias based on race, religion, national origin, or color, and the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a "federally protected right" (e.g. voting, attending school, etc.) T his dual requirement substantially limits the potential for federal assistance in investigating or prosecuting hate crimes, even when the crime is particularly heinous.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victims’ community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the vi... ...  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Law." Human Rights 22 (1995): 32-33 Dennis, Valerie. MTV remembers Matthew Shepard with 17-hour program on hate   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  crimes, University Wire, 01-10-2001 Feingold, Stanley. "Hate Crime Legislation Muzzles Free Speech." The National Law  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Journal 15 (July 1, 1993): 6, 16 Franke-Folstad, Kim. Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer, HATE-CRIME   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  LAWS NOT A BLACK-WHITE ISSUE. Denver Rocky Mountain News, 01-18-  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  1999, pp 6A Gellman, Susan. "Sticks And Stones." UCLA Law Review 39 (December, 1991):  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  333-396 Patrick, Robert F. Cops find hate often has broad definition, The Washington Times, 04-  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  02-01, pp C1 R.A.V. v. St. Paul (505 U.S. 377) Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) The Associated Press, Reno Fights Hate Crimes, Newsday, 01-09-1998, pp A21 The Christian Science Publishing Society 30 Brad Knickerbockers, Staff writing of The   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Christian Science Monitor, Hate Crimes: Should they receive special attention?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Christian Science Monitor, 06-23-200, pp 22 U.S. v. O'Brien (391 U.S. 367) Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 476) Wooley v. Maynard (430 U.S. 705) W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624)

Against Same Sex Marriage Essay

The legalization of the marriage between same sex couples will permanently change the rite of marriage in our society. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family. Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbol related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society works out the relationship of two people who will together create and nurture a new generation. To change the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage couples would destroy its capacity to function in many ways. It could no longer represent procreative relationships of opposite sex marriages.Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which the future of life depends. It is the primary reason why marriage is so important to society. In same sex marriages procreation would be eliminated entirely. First, when the state sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from spiritual prospective, the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is reduced to a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience. Cohabitation and short term relationships are the inevitable result. Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead to polygamy and other alternatives to the one man, on woman unions. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once the line has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology, and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals it will be supported by nothing more substantiated than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices (Marriage under Fire). After their decision, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of rights. Given that unstable legal judgment, it is certain some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. How about group marriage or marriage between cousins, or marriage between parent and child? How about marriage between a man and his animal? Anything allegedly linked to civil rights will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. These other couples restricted from marrying are not equivalent to homosexual couples, but are necessary to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of its costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. A marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage, couples unlikely to produce children. One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce (Single Parent: What Helps, What Hurts). However, there is ample evidence that children need both female and male parent for proper development. It is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes (Life without Father). With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this lifestyle is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a woman and a man. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships and stories written for children as young as elementary or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals. Every public school will also be forced to teach that same sex marriage and homosexuality are perfectly normal. They will teach little boys  and little girls that husband and wife and father and moother are merely optional for a family and therfore, meaningless (No Gay Marriage). Same sex families deny children either a mother or father. In certain cases, the same sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults. Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every measure of well-being. These children suffer from higher levels of loneliness, physical or mental illness, behavior problems, educa tional failure or criminal troubles. The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. Homosexual activists, with their inner power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. Gay marriages are likely to do for gay rights what the rallying cry of â€Å"abortion on demand† did for the Equal Rights Amendment and the women’s movement. It diverts the real debate on every level. It reduces the cause of gay rights to a single issue. But the real deal is most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. They do not want to entangle themselves in all sorts of legal constraints (Single Parent What Helps, What Hurts). In a perfect democratic world, gay marriage would be an option for those who want it. However, this world is not a perfect democracy, and the fight for gay marriage is the wrong fight at the wrong time (Focus on Family). In conclusion, the reason for excluding same sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying homosexual marriage is that we have no respect for same sex couples and their relationships and want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then that is discrimination and that is wrong. On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and the essence is to protect the procreative relationship, then excluding same sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable. This such refusal is not discrimination. Ethics requires us to take the least invasive, least restrictive alternative, reasonably available and likely to be effective in achieving a justified  goal. Maintaining a traditional marriage and legally recognizing same sex partnerships fulfills that ethical requirement (Why Marriage Matters). Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. What will happen to society if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the state will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments associated with it. These are a few reasons why I am against homosexual marriage. Legalizing it will change everything, especially the institution of the family. Every society needs natural marriage- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her- working together to create and raise the next generation.

A Change in Thinking.

A Change in Thinking. A Change in ThinkingIn The Hammer Man, a young black girl learns about racial inequality through an event in her life. Realizing that being black is different than being white, she must change her way of thinking and acting in order to survive. The author, Toni Cade Bambara, wants to explain how racial inequality is not learned but experienced by black people because of their environment.The young girl grew up in an inner city neighborhood. She survived the neighborhood by becoming a tough tom-boy. She did not have much of a home life. She was not very close to her mother; however, she was closer to her father because she was the only girl. Miss Rose was a neighbor who was more like a mother to her. She listened to her problems and would take up for the little girl.Manny is a boy who wants to beat up the little girl because she said bad things about his mother.Sir mannyHe waited for her around her house for days, but she was inside hiding from him. It was around this time when Manny got on the roof and fell off. When she found out he was hurt she came out of her house. She did not see Manny very much after this accident.A youth center opened in the neighborhood and her mother pushed her into joining because she did not want her around. When at the center, she looked in the files and found out that she "was from a deviant family in a deviant neighborhood". One night after being thrown out of the center, she saw Manny practicing his lay-ups. She stood there and watched Manny for an hour and did not know why. The next thing she knew is that two cops are asking...

The Distraction of Prepositional Phrases in Noun-Verb Agreement

The Distraction of Prepositional Phrases in Noun-Verb Agreement The Distraction of Prepositional Phrases in Noun-Verb Agreement The Distraction of Prepositional Phrases in Noun-Verb Agreement By Mark Nichol The question of whether to use the singular or plural form of a verb in a sentence can be complicated by the distracting presence of a prepositional phrase- one that includes a preposition such as of, in, or to followed by a noun directly or after one or more an intervening verbs and/or adjectives. But as the following examples demonstrate, such a phrase should (with a key exception) be disregarded when identifying which noun the sentence’s key verb should agree with. 1. The rapid and almost ubiquitous deployment of smartphone technologies across the globe has/have put sophisticated technology in the hands of consumers. The multiplicity of nouns preceding has- deployment, technologies, globe- can throw a writer off, but the noun in a prepositional phrase (such as in â€Å"of smartphone technologies† or â€Å"across the globe†) is irrelevant, so the first in series of nouns in this sentence (â€Å"deployment . . . has†) is the pertinent one: â€Å"The rapid and almost ubiquitous deployment of smartphone technologies across the globe has put sophisticated technology in the hands of consumers.† 2. There is/are, however, a set of technologies and innovations that have already reached a point where they are robust enough to have real-world applicability. This sentence also features a distracting prepositional phrase, but it follows the key verb, rather than preceding it, as the one in the preceding example does, so the writer may not recognize the applicability of the previously mentioned rule; the pairing is â€Å"is . . . a set,† not â€Å"are . . . technologies and innovations†: â€Å"There is, however, a set of technologies and innovations that have already reached a point where they are robust enough to have real-world applicability. (Notice, however, that the subsequent verbs have and are apply to â€Å"technologies and innovations† rather than set, so they are correct in plural form.) 3. A number of factors have led to the increasing use of technology in relation to regulatory compliance. Note, however, an exception to the rule about the irrelevance of prepositional phrases in noun-verb agreement- when the prepositional phrase follows the phrase â€Å"a number†; in that case, the more substantial noun in the prepositional phrase, rather than the vague word number, is pertinent: â€Å"A number of factors have led to the increasing use of technology in relation to regulatory compliance.† You can test the exception by realizing that â€Å"a number of† can be replaced with the adjective many; the correct form of the verb following â€Å"many factors† is obvious. (This post provides a more detailed discussion of the issue.) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:10 Rules for Writing Numbers and Numerals10 Techniques for More Precise WritingDouble Possessive