Poetry Essay

/in /by

For your 3rd essay, a poetry explication, choose one of the poems we’ve been discussing and explore a mixture of the paragraph ideas below, choosing the ones you feel best suit your chosen poem. 

Poems to choose from include the following:

“Living Poets” by Jeffrey Skinner

“Late Poem to My Father” by Sharon Olds

“America” by Tony Hoagland

“Hard Rain” by Tony Hoagland

“Soil Horizon” by Tiana Clark

“So I Know” by Bob Hicok

“The Elevator Operator” by Amit Majmudar

 

Paragraph ideas from which to choose in order to build your argument:

  • discuss the complicated issue/situation/development at stake in the poem

 

  • discuss a key image and how this image works to advance the poem’s tension or theme

 

  • discuss, if applicable, the author’s use of enjambment and how specific line breaks may serve to emphasize certain words connected to the poem’s theme

 

  • discuss a central word in the poem and how the word can teach a reader how to interpret the rest of the poem

 

  • discuss a family of words that connect to each other and how these words advance the theme of the poem

 

  • discuss the use of figurative language and any relationship to the poem’s theme

 

  • discuss the tone of the poem and which specific parts of the poem (imagery, diction) support this tone

 

  • discuss, if applicable, the author’s use of syntax

 

  • discuss any allusions within the poem and how these allusions connect to the poem’s purpose
  • GUIDELINES FOR OPENING PARAGRAPH OF LITERARY ESSAY (SHORT FICTION) 
  • Mention the author’s full name and the title of the work
  • After mentioning the author’s name the first time, from then on use only the author’s last name.
  • Remember that short works (stories, essays, and poems) require the use of quotation marks (e.g. “Everyday Use”) while long works such as novels require italics (Huckleberry Finn)
  • Use present tense verbs when writing about literature
  • Provide a general plot summary of the work—no need to go into great detail—just the basic gist of things.  In essence, you are providing a context in which to examine the story. 
  • Provide a more analytical/interpretive understanding of the work’s underlying tension and its resolution.  What is the work’s overall purpose, its reason for being, its theme?
  • Explain the method or “how” (i.e. the elements of fiction: plot, structure, characterization, symbolism, setting, style, point of view, tone) through which the author achieves his or her purpose for the story

Considerations:If you are addressing an author’s use of setting, for instance, do you make an argument about how the author’s use of setting helps to advance the story’s theme? Does your opening paragraph, in fact, establish a theme, or purpose, for the story?  In order to do so, you’ll need to establish an understanding of the central conflict of the story and the resolution it finds. Remember that plot + conflict + resolution = theme. Without this understanding, your first paragraph hasn’t fully done its job.

Cyber Crimes, Intergency Partnership, Local Law Enforcement Cyber Response

/in /by
  1. dentify the four critical needs at the state or local level of law enforcement in order to fight computer crime more effectively. 
  2. Discuss the concept of “going dark.” How does this present a problem for law enforcement agencies in the fight against cybercrime.

Need 2 pages

Federal Coordination, Consolidation and Inter-agency Partnerships

/in /by

Discuss how and why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consolidated so many federal offices. 

healthcare ethics

/in /by

1.    come up with a healthcare ethical issue, take a position for or against it and argue your position. By way of examples, healthcare ethical issues to write about include but are not limited to: (i) right to die, (ii) vaccination, (iii) the right to refuse medical treatment, (iv) abortion, (v) paternalism, (vi) the right to healthcare, and (vii) informed consent.

 

2.       Apply two of the following principles: nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, or autonomy.

 

3.       Your essay must be 3 pages, double spaced, 11 font.

 

4.       No outside material accepted.  Use only material directly from the textbook. Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Beauchamp and Childress

 

5.       Write succinctly and with a style of your own. Argue: justify, justify, justify.

 

6.       APA or MLA are both acceptable, and the paper must adopt one of the two. Include a separate cover and reference page. Include in-text citations for all direct and indirect quotations (I treat this very strictly). Reference page for APA, Bibliography for MLA.

 

7.       Word Doc files only, please. Submit everything as a single file.

 

8.       Failure to write in an essay format (introduction, body and conclusion) will result in a grade of zero.  Writing in a block paragraph will receive no credit.

healthcare ethics

/in /by

three questions 150words short answers each.

(i)                 Make an argument reflecting your position on cases such as Tarasoff, in which a therapist or other mental health professional is told by a patient, in confidence, about that patient’s desire or intent to harm another person. Based on your understanding of the rule of confidentiality, its role in the professional–patient relationship, and the principles it reflects, along with other principles or rules that may possibly be used to justify its being overridden, do you think that it should be obligatory for a therapist or other professional to report a patient’s threats to authorities and/or to the person against whom the threats have been made? Should it be permitted, if not obligatory? Should it be forbidden? Why?

 

(ii)               Four doctors—a utilitarian, a Kantian, a rights theorist, and a virtue theorist—are working simultaneously in an emergency room. What tasks might each gravitate toward or be most proficient in? What patients with what conditions might prefer to have one of these doctors directly overseeing their case as opposed to another? Which doctor might the patients want to be overseeing the entire emergency room?

(iii)             Is moral change possible? Draw on your reading from Beauchamp and Childress, but make your own argument for why or why not.

healthcare ethics

/in /by

two questions 150 words each

(i)                 Describe how paternalism presents a conflict between two (or more) moral principles, and distinguish between hard paternalism and soft paternalism.

 

(ii)               You are on an ethics advisory committee that has been tasked with developing a policy for determining who receives organs through cadaveric organ transplantation. In your proposal address such questions as the relevant material principle(s) of justice that you are using (and their relative priority), as well as whether (or in what cases) citizenship is a relevant criterion for being admitted to transplantation waiting lists.

ethics morals

/in /by

3 short answer questions 100 words per answer

(i)                 Fetuses are considered variously to have the moral status of mere tissue, to have appreciable though not full moral status, or to have full moral status. On what theories of moral status might each of these claims be based? Articulate a theory of the moral status of a fetus, defending your position from potential objections raised by advocates of the other two positions.

 

(ii)               Please list and briefly describe three different forms of consent. Which form is generally most preferable, and why?

 

(iii)             What is the conventional distinction in medicine between killing and allowing to die? Does such a distinction hold up in practice? Why or why not?

Al

/in /by

A premise of this course is that all of us seek truth. In order to arrive at what is true, we seek knowledge. Rationalists argue we obtain this knowledge through reason and logic. Empiricists argue we obtain our view of the world through our senses. Our curiosity is a factor in our seeking knowledge and challenging beliefs to arrive at what is true. Aristotle sees human consciousness as a defining element of who we are. There are philosophers who believe we have unlimited potential. Some like Socrates and Plato believe in the concept of soul and our continual evolvement. They even believe we come into the world with some elements of truth built into us. We are able to challenge belief systems and create new systems to live within. Our potential is unending. Now we have  Artificial Intelligence. Explain why you believe AI will or will not reach human consciousness. Use at least three of the concepts above to frame your conclusion. I will expect that you have a definition of human consciousness to refer to in your paper and that you will use reason and have adequate support for your reasoning. Remember that this is a paper that has a well developed introduction, a body consistent with the introduction with adequate support and a conclusion that brings together the body information with the focus for the paper. Please place your papers in the appropriate boxes. This is due next class. You may want to research what AI is capable of doing.

Crito

/in /by

“Crito” is a dialogues between Crito and Socrates after Socrates has been sentenced to death A. Crito wants Socrates to run away to another city state and avoid death. What points does he bring up? What is Socrates response to each? What is Socrates final decision?( please make specific reference to their points in the text) B. If you were in Socrates position, what would you do? Explain your reasoning. C. As citizens in the United States, would you agree with Socrates that we choose to live here and are obligated to obey the law. Laws exist for the common good. They are created by the consent of the governed. They can also be changed by the consent of the governed. Even if we disagree with the law we are obligated to obey it.  Be sure to give an example of a couple laws in your argument. Answer this question by labeling each section:

 A Crito Dialogue: Be sure to use references several  direct quotes from the dialogue (he said/he responded)

B Socrates Decision: his reasoning: include direct quotes 

C, My Response : Would you do the same? your reasons and support of reasoning

D. Obligation to Obey Laws. Socrates Argument/ Agree/Disagree. Give at least two reasons and support each reason through examples

socrotes philosophy

/in /by

short reading followed by 5 short answers. 4-5sentances 

John Locke was an English philosopher and physician. He lived from 1632 to 1704. He is considered to be the Father of liberalism. He believed human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. He also believed human nature allowed people to be selfish.

He was aware of another philosopher Thomas Hobbs(1588-1697) who argues that men are essentially machines with even their thoughts and emotions operating according to physical laws in chains of cause and effect. He felt humans always pursue their own self interests and are essentially greedy. He saw society as a larger version of this human  reality operating according to the same laws. He sees geometry as the branch of knowledge that best can be used to form the basis of philosophy. He believed that in mans natural state moral ideas do not exist.  Good is what people desire and evil is what they avoid. In order to avoid conflict that leads to civil war he argues for a monarchy or a structure of obedience to one central authority.

John  Locke believed there were fundamental natural human rights.  These are life, liberty and property. ( you will note hat these words are in our Declaration of Independence ) He believed people form government by mutual agreement. When a king loses the consent of the governed, a society may remove him. Government is formed to protect natural human rights.

Our Founding Fathers were philosophers. They were aware of the writings of the philosophers we have discussed. One of the outstanding aspects of the government they created was the ability within the structure to accommodate change. They created three bodies that monitor each other so that there was no absolute monarchy. Change could occur through a process that allowed for new ideas and growth There were founding principles and a dialogue that would allow for agreed upon laws to be followed.

1. Thomas Hobbs argues that humans are naturally greedy. Do you agree/disagree/why? It is built into us. 

2. Greed is seen as a vice, wanting too much of something. Aristotle argued that we should aim for the “golden mean” which is in between wanting too much (greed) and being too generous. ( giving it all away) Is Aristotle’s concept the way we have been taught to think and act? 

3. Our Founding Fathers incorporated Locke into the fabric of our country. Hobbs believes we need a central authority that can create laws for societies good, for societies benefit and mandate that citizens follow the law. He favored a framework such as a monarchy with a Philosopher as a mentor. What are the benefits and drawbacks of each approach

4. If we go back to Plato and Aristotle, government should help form us as virtuous people. Taking the pandemic as an example, take two virtues ( i previously gave you a list) and explain how these virtues if they were embraced by our society as a whole would impact the way we deal with the pandemic. Is it possible to mandate these two virtues?

5. James Madison, one of our early Presidents wrote that ” if men were angels no government would be necessary.” As soon as we start living in community, government naturally forms. Men are born free but they are also imperfect. That imperfection results in a need for laws. Yet, laws by their nature restrict out freedom. There is a tension between freedom of the individual and the imperfections in humanity that create a need for laws. Issues we face today are women’s rights, LBGTQ rights, and our history in the western world of slavery. At the time of many of these philosophers rights were thought of in terms of the male gender. Women were subject to men. LBGTQ was not acknowledged or outlawed, and slavery was accepted. Our system, in the United States, because of built in mechanisms for change, has worked to address these issues.  Laws have been created that both restrict freedom and create freedom because we live in community and are not angels. How would you asses our balance between protecting the rights of the  individual and the need to address societies imperfections?