Marketing Plan for Final Flight (Aerial cremation dispersal) Research Proposal

Marketing Plan for Final Flight (Aerial cremation dispersal) - Research Proposal Example Cremation is, therefore, preferred by a large section of the society. However, disposing the remains becomes a major issue and most families are seen to preserve it in urns, which in time becomes taxing to preserve. Final Flight aims to provide an effective alternative for disposing the ashes of deceased loved ones by scattering them in the air by means of an airplane. The current paper will analyze the market opportunities and specify different marketing plans of the company so as to realize whether undertaking such a business venture is deemed profitable. As we know, those who identify with a religion, different faiths have different traditions when it comes to cremation. While many Christians have traditionally chosen burial -- mirroring Jesus entombment and the belief that the body and the spirit are one and must be whole for resurrection -- others have not, particularly some liberal Protestants. The Catholic Church lifted its ban on cremation in 1963. But the No. 1 reason cited for choosing cremation in a national survey was cost. On average, cremation is one-third the cost of burial (not including the burial plot or upkeep), ranging from about $500 to $1,500, according to the Cremation Association of North America. This company will be called Final Flight LLC, which will be an aerial cremation dispersal service offering an alternative to the underground burial or spreading of ashes over the ground on a local, state, national, and eventually a global level. Our goal is to provide personalized aerial cremation dispersal with the highest standards of dignified and ethical service regarding your loved one’s ashes from the air. We are committed to the highest level of integrity to fulfill the requests of the family. Sunsets become everlasting memorials†¦when the remains of your loved one are dispersed by air. The

Emotions & the monster Essay Example for Free

Emotions the monster Essay Acceptance is very important in society, and the same perceptions apply just as much today as they did in the 1800s. It is part of human nature to make instant judgments, and to form first impressions of a person before you know what they are really like, and this is what happened to Frankensteins monster in this book. Although it is almost impossible to avoid making these snap decisions, they can almost always be changed later on, and put right once you get to know the person. Everyone wants to be accepted for who they are, regardless of appearances or stature, however this is not always the case. This can be related to the treatment the monster receives upon meeting other people. He is not the norm, and is undoubtedly ugly to look at, but that does not make him a bad person. Shelley manages to show this in such a way that the reader feels sorry for the monster, but we can see that it is something that is unlikely to change, as it is a normal part of society and human nature. Shelley shows her disgust at this harsh treatment through the monsters feelings, which are shared with Victor later on in the book, and it is as if the author is pouring out her emotions, rather than the monsters. The hideous figure, the disfigured stature of this monster is the first thing noticed by Victor Frankenstein. His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles. This reference to the monsters yellow skin depicts the same behaviour conducted in modern day racism. The colour of ones skin does not dictate the intelligence, attitude and personality of a person. Regardless of the yellow skin of the monster, which would repulse and overwhelm most people, there is no need to carry over that emotion to judge the monsters intellectual side. The mind and body are two very different things; human beings have yet to distinguish that fact. Mary Shelley clearly feels very strongly about this unfair prejudice in place in society, and has tried (very successfully) to show her readers just how unjust it really is. However, until people actually do something about it, it is just a part of society which we will probably never be entirely without. We may feel that it is wrong, but it will always be there, and it is something people have learnt to deal with in society. The novel, Frankenstein, actually reflects quite badly on the society in which Mary Shelley lived. It suggests that this type of behaviour was carrying on back then towards different people and was accepted as part of every day life. Humans have always and will continue to be scared of the unknown. Some might say that what you dont know about cant hurt you, but there is a sense of mystery and darkness behind unidentified things. This fear is ever increasing alongside the amount of horror films and novels, by which the general public is heavily influenced maybe sometimes too heavily. The public has always been influenced by the media, which is created by society, and with an increasing amount of stories and films out with the intention of scaring the audience, people are getting more and more prejudiced towards the unknown. Luckily this is counteracted by an increasing knowledge of other cultures and races, but Shelley lived in a society where people were still very ignorant about other people, and automatically assumed the worst. Although it is not shown outright, in Frankenstein, the monster actually experiences this fear as well as the villagers when he comes into their town. Their fears were of the same thing the unfamiliar; however their reactions were completely different. Some villagers threw rocks, and were trying to drive the monster away as if it was a worthless piece of society; others simply ran away in shock, screaming and scared. This is not justified by anything except his demeanor. The monster, on the other hand, did not reply in a violent manner at all, he just tried to hide from all people from then on. This just goes to show how much people are affected by small things in their life. One incident such as this could ruin an entire life, and the villagers did not realise just how selfish they were being. They did not think about his feelings, and left him to support himself, poor and defenseless. The public do not realise how much little things they may pass off as unimportant affect others, and in this case, society ruined the monsters life. From that moment and for the rest of his existence, the monster knew not to interfere with human beings, for their nature was clearly different to his. The monster, like all human beings, wanted to be accepted for his intellectual abilities and personality, and both him and humans have it in their nature to be afraid of the unknown, yet the villagers had an unmistakable advantage over the monster the monster was still innocent and nai ve, unsure of the world around him and ignorant of human nature. He was not accepted by anyone, purely because of his appearance. This fact is obvious as no one as yet had even had the chance to get to know the monsters personality, not even the monster himself had had this opportunity, because he could not speak and did not know anything about society. Therefore human nature plays an incredibly important role in the novel, because without it the villagers would probably have accepted the monster, and he would never have turned out how he did.

The Concept of Metaphysical Liberalism: On the Philosophical Source o

The Concept of 'Metaphysical Liberalism': On the Philosophical Source of 'Liberal Democracy' ABSTRACT: There have been many discussions about ‘Liberalism’ in modern political philosophy. In this paper, I want to discuss the liberal principles of political philosophy on the metaphysical level. This includes the liberal mind, the liberal consciousness, and the liberal ethos, all of which are presupposed in our liberal behaviors, and in turn serve as fundamental principles in any multicultural society. I want to emphasize the liberal tendencies of self-criticism and of the critical way of thinking in European traditional metaphysics, such as Plato’s dialectics or Kant’s philosophy of criticism. The latter is also the logic of dialogue which produces an endless questioning of possible universal truths. I group these characteristics under the label ‘Metaphysical Liberalism’ and assess them from three standpoints: (1) critical agnosticism; (2) methodological falsificationism; and (3) pluralistic universalism. These three points enable us to remain self-conscious of the limitation of any kind of special theory or thought in order to prevent the emergence of any dogmatic belief-system. Such liberal attitudes that allow the realization of individual ideas and thoughts without any political coercion in turn sustain a democratic federalism that creates space for the expression of public opinion even while protecting such space. Such a situation, however, is possible only by educating ourselves in this metaphysical method. I. Liberalism, as Principle of ‘open society’ Nowadays, we are forced to live inworld where there are no barriers, in which the global exchange of information and communications between people have already becom... ... interfering, systematically speaking, it is valid to establish an impartial observance group in every organization, and to hold a deliberative organ there, in which all members can participate directly and make divided open discussions to solve inner problems caused in each section. But taking root in the tolerant and self-critical attitude of liberalism, is not solely possible by systematic improvement. I say again, this is only possible by the Kant’s words: ‘Revolution of thinking’, on the level of an individual’s consciousness, which means ‘Paideia’of philosophy, namely the education of liberal way of thinking in metaphysics. This philosophical education is not an ideal, but the indispensable task we are confronting with today. So I would like to emphasize that the completion of this task will make one of the universal frameworks to realize an impartial society.

A Comparison between Drug Policy as Social Control

Nicolas Beltran English 101 /Ms. Jackson March 13 2012 While reading â€Å"Drug Policy as Social Control† by Noam Chomsky and â€Å"Crito† by Plato I noticed a similarity between the two. People in higher power have ways of stabilizing populations. The government is customized to make people fail and the less fortunate are targeted. The inequalities of the government aren’t dealt with but they surely do exist. Law’s are strictly enforced to populations where mostly black males live and populations where crime rates are high. Not all people have to deal with the law the same way due to social class.The government has it’s own way of controlling people who are thought to be dangerous. How does the government control people? The government is able to put fear in the hearts of people. Governments have tried to take away programs which help people who are struggling. People worry about public assistance such as welfare because they need it and the govern ment uses the poor populations weakness to their advantage. The government has it’s own way of silencing people who they feel might be a threat to people in higher power like Socrates.Socrates from â€Å"Crito† had information that might have endangered the government. That is the main reason why he was sentenced to prison. Both Socrates and Martin Luther King served time in jail. Neither of them were a threat to their communities. They were wise men who both were the voice of their community’s. The government seen them as dangerous so they were killed. This is why I believe the governments selected method of keeping things stabilized is unfair to the thought to be dangerous population. Countries are unfair when it comes to giving everyone equal rights.There are people who are superior to the law. Did you notice not one sentence in â€Å"Drug Policy as Social Control† said anything about targeted rich or white people ? I wonder why no upper class people a re being arrested. No one is perfect and we know the poor and dangerous aren’t the only people who get their hands on drugs. Many people get away with illegal transactions but they fly under the radar because they are rich. The upper class people do the same things the less fortunate populations are doing by taking and selling drugs but are less likely to be imprisoned.In â€Å"Drug policy as Social Control its specifically says â€Å"none of this has anything to do with drugs†. The main purpose in the so called drug control is to criminalize dangerous black populations. Our country is known to give people equal rights and freedom. It isn’t as it appears as you can see our country has favorites and the poor are targeted. While the upper class seems more united the government makes the poor hate each other. The way the government works the less fortunate are setup to fail.Job opportunities are decreasing and so are job wages. There are less support systems for t he people who need them. The Percentage of poverty is increasing while the rich get all the attention as their wealth keeps growing. In â€Å"Drug Policy as Social Control† it says, â€Å" If we wanted to stop drug use in the United States there’s an easy way to do it†. This means that the government can prevent drugs from getting into the country but they don’t because it helps them control populations by using drugs to criminalize black men.Where is the justice in this method of controlling people ? In my opinion this is a setup. These problems continue occurring in our country but there is no change. The voices of dangerous populations will continue to be controlled by the government. Hopefully one day poor and thought to be dangerous communities will not be recognized as what they are thought to be. The voices of these communities have been silenced for thousands of years, so has Jesus Christ. All these leaders have died for what they believed in.

Let There Be Light

Electric Compass' were used 3. At is a good conductor of electricity electron 4. Not until after Mechanics 5. Magnetic compass 6. (Tape notes in notebook) Some things attract, others repel. All objects fall and move with respect to gravity. 7. Benjamin Franklin 8. A fundamental element Of mass 9. Like repel, different attract 10. Far apart- hard to tell they are attracting, close together-easy to notice. 11. They both have like currents and likes repel, opposites attract but magnets eave poles not charges.They are still positive and negative. 12. In one direction there I am electric field and in another magnetic, they work together 13. Friction at a distance 14. Attraction would change instantaneously Nothing can travel faster than light 15. 16. The field of force 17. It is the field that tells two objects how to interact 18. The earth's mass is so big that it barely moves 19. Action at a distance is every part of the earth pulling at an object. Whereas a field of force is better bec ause it creates a field for a disturbance to travel wrought. 0. They are centered around something and the farther away from it the weaker the field. 21 . Everything is pulled to the center. The farther from the center the weaker the force. 22. Electric charges in the center 23. In my notebook 24. Because this is our earth, it surrounds us completely 25. Electric generator, electromagnet, electric motor 26. A generator uses motion to make electricity. A motor uses electricity to make motion. 27. Moving it, moving a coil, turning an electromagnet on and off 28. Energy, mass, weather, volts, compounds 9.Credit card, electricity 30. He thought that it was this way and used common sense to then propose this idea. 31 . Electricity make magnetism and magnetism makes electricity 32. The second synthesis is putting magnetism and electricity together as described in Maxwell equations. 33. Because electromagnetism is one of them 34. 35. We are causing a disturbance in the air; predicted waves , speed of waves 36. Because visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation that travels through a field. Light travels in fields.