Reading Is a Skill Essay Example for Free

Reading Is a Skill Essay Reading is a necessary skill in your everyday life. We use it to discover new things; books, magazines and internet. It requires the ability to read and understand what is read. It is fundamental to function in today’s society. If you don’t read well no matter who you are, you have a hard time in life. Reading is a vital skill in finding a job. In order to have a job, you need to know how to read mainly English. Reading is important because it develops the mind. The mind is a muscle, it needs exercise. Reading is necessary for men and women of all ages and it is used in everyday life. Reading is fundamental to function in todays society. Reading is used in everyday life; we read signs, instructions on a medicine bottle, and filling out applications. There are many adults who cannot read well enough to understand the instructions on a medicine bottle. Filling out applications becomes impossible without help. Reading road or warning signs is difficult. If you don’t know how to read you probably have a difficult life, you don’t understand things and becomes impossible without help. It’s a scary thought that a fully grown man or women does not know how to read. Reading is a day-to-day activity; you do it all day, even when you don’t realize it. Reading is a vital skill in finding a good job. All jobs require you to read, it doesn’t matter what field or occupation you’re in, you have to know how to read. Many well-paying jobs require reading as a part of job performance. There are reports and memos which must be read and responded to. Poor reading skills increase the amount of time it takes to absorb the information and do the work. A person is limited in what they can accomplish without good reading and comprehension skills. Reading is important because it develops the mind. The mind is a muscle. It needs exercise. As you read, the written words make the mind grow. Teaching young children to read helps them develop their language skills. It also helps them learn to listen and understand. Reading develops the imagination unlike TVs and computer games can. With reading, a person can go anywhere in the world or even out of it! They can be a king, queen, adventurer, anything! The possibilities are endless. Non-readers never experience these joys to the same extent, they have a harder life. All in all, I believe reading is an educational advancement. You need it to function in today’s society, it is a vital skill in finding a good job, and it develops the mind. It is a way to broaden our knowledge and spark new ideas. It is a necessary skill and we use it everyday at all times. I don’t read a lot, but I believe that if I read more I would be one of the best . Reading helps you understand things clearer and better. Reading is necessary and is used in everyday life; adolescents, teens, and seniors have and will be using reading until the world is over. It will advance more and someone one day will find a better way to advance the reading field, making everyone shine and understand it better!

Family Trusts Law Problem Question

Family Trusts Law Problem Question This question concerns the law of trusts in the family home. Specifically, Mary requires advice on two questions: whether Philip is entitled to a share in the property, 8 Emerald Way, and whether she is able to sell the house now that she and Phillip have split up. TRUST OF THE HOME The starting point in any case is the identity of the legal owner. Here, the property is in the name of Mary. The prima facie position is that she also controls the beneficial interest[1]. Phillip has two arguments that could be used to claim part of the beneficial interest. The first, and stronger, is that there was an agreement that they should beneficially share the ownership. The second is that he has made direct contributions which lead to a presumption of a resulting trust. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST This argument centres on a claim that when the title was put into Mary’s name, there was a common intention to share the beneficial ownership. Philip has only one way of demonstrating such an intention; the reason given for placing the property in Mary’s name. In Eves v Eves[2] the man put the property in his name, giving as an excuse that the female was under 21. Likewise another man claimed reasoned that it would prevent adverse effects on her divorce proceedings[3]. In these cases it was held that, but for the excuse, the property would have been registered jointly. Here, the excuse given was that to place it in Philips name would leave a trail for creditors to follow should his business run into trouble. This would appear to satisfy the Eves[4] and Grant[5] authorities except for a distinguishing feature. It appears that it was Philips suggestion and as such there may be a counter-argument stating that this is not a proper excuse case. The rationale of the authorities suggest that the courts would find that there was an intention that both would have ownership and that only the excuse prevented both being entered on the legal title. Philip would also have to show that he acted to his detriment. The courts have been imprecise on the requirements to satisfy this point. In Grant[6] a partner had contributed to the general expenditure which freed up money to pay the mortgage instalments. She was entitled to a share. In Lloyds Bank v Rosset[7] the House of Lords[8] said that merely maintaining the house would not entitle a partner to a share. In Hammond v Mitchell[9] the partner acted as an unpaid assistant to the business which again was an indirect contribution that was rewarded with a share of the beneficial interest. In this case Philip has paid for the new car; paid expenses for the house, and paid for the holiday to Corfu. While none of these are direct payments to the mortgage, all of them are payments which allowed Mary to pay the mortgage payments. Therefore, Phillip has a strong case under Grant[10] that he should be entitled to a share in the beneficial interest. RESULTING TRUST If the court were to find against Philip on either of the above points, he may still claim that a resulting trust arose. He would have to establish that he contributed money to the purchase price of the house. In Springette v Defoe[11], the court ruled that either an original contribution or contributions to the mortgage will suffice. In this case he has not contributed directly to the mortgage. When the house was initially purchased, the couple paid a 5% deposit, in real terms  £5,000. If he contributed anything towards this then he will be able to establish a direct contribution which will entitle him to a beneficial interest. THE SPLIT OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST Mary should also be advised on the possible divide that the courts will make should Philip prevail in demonstrating a beneficial interest. Traditionally, for a financial contribution the courts tended to follow the division of the contributions. Since Drake v Whipp[12] this has been less certain with the courts adopting, in their own words, a â€Å"broad brush† approach. In that case, a 20% contribution was rewarded with a 33% beneficial interest. In Drake[13] the distinction between a common intention trust and a resulting trust was emphasised, with an equal split being more likely in the former. She should be warned though that it is possible for Phillip to be awarded an equal share of the property. THE PROBLEM OF SALE If Phillip has a beneficial interest Mary will be a trustee for herself and Phillip. Phillips reaction to an attempted sale will be important. If he consents then naturally there will be no difficulties. If Phillip objected then the crucial point would be the existence of one trustee. Mary would be unable to use the overreaching rules contained in the Land Registration Acts[14]. Mary could still attempt to sell the property but Phillip could attempt to block the sale by seeking relief under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. This gives the court a wide discretion to grant an injunction. Given the discretion, it is difficult to predict whether Mary would prevail. The court would take into account the original intention of the parties when purchasing the parties, as well as individual factors that are case dependent.[15] CONCLUSION Mary should be advised that it is likely that Phillip will be awarded a share in the beneficial interest, either by way of common intention trust, or a resulting trust. If Phillip objects to the house being sold, he could seek an injunction pursuant to section 14 of TOLATA. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hanbury and Martin‘Modern Equity’ 16th Ed. pub by Sweet Maxwell Doherty M‘Equity and Trusts’ pub by Old Bailey Press Springette v Defoe (1993) 65 P CR 1 Drake v Whipp (1997) 60 MLR 420 Hammond v Mitchell (1991) 1 WLR 1127 Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1991) 1 AC 10 Eves v Eves (1975) 1 WLR 1338 Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 Grant v Edwards (1986) Ch 638 1 Footnotes [1] Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 at 900 [2] (1975) 1 WLR 1338 [3] Grant v Edwards (1986) Ch 638 [4] ibid n2 [5] ibid n3 [6] ibid [7] (1991) 1 AC 107 [8] ibid. obiter [9](1991) 1 WLR 1127 [10] ibid n3 [11] (1993) 65 P CR 1 [12] (1997) 60 MLR 420 [13] ibid [14] 1925 and 2002 Acts [15]

Political Anarchy :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are several arguments against philosophical anarchism. Most of the arguments are in line with either the theory that consent is not required or of the theory we have already consented. For the sake of being brief, this essay will attempt to refute only the latter of the two. Along with the idea of individual consent is the longstanding, traditional theory of the authority of God. Other arguments follow a less anarchist view and are that of tacit consent and more specifically that of majority consent. The idea that consent is essential for the legitimacy of political authority can be argued against in many ways. Traditionally, the argument that God gave government authority was valid and in accepting religion we accept this as well. If you rebel against this order, you rebel against God. It was reason enough for most people to stop questioning such authority. In the last few centuries, however, the idea of personal freedom and independence has shifted mainstream thinking to being skeptical of the religious premise of government. Just because you believe in God doesn’t mean that you believe he gives government authority over you. The rising political awareness in our societies is causing many people to wonder how much power our government should really have over us. Even if the argument of political authority by God still cannot be argued against, then what about those who do not believe in God? Are they expected to follow governmental authority just as everyone else when th ey do not believe a god gave authority to government? How does on reconcile that they do and still try to argue that everyone has consented in this way? Next, is the argument of tacit consent. Those upholding this argument say that we consent to government through some action such as voting, paying taxes, or even just by living in its territory. It even goes as far to saying that we consent simply by remaining silent. Does this mean that we consent to something when we choose an option that is forced upon us? We have more options than the ones given to us by the government. It’s just that they have the power to punish us if we don’t choose from their palette of choices. The fact that we make a choice does not necessarily make it voluntary. Can one say then that if someone believes they make a choice voluntarily it constitutes consent?

The Effects of Agent Orange on Veterans of the Vietnam War Essay

Almost thirty years after the last troops were pulled out of what was then South Vietnam, its effects are still felt in today’s society. It is hard not to find someone who’s life has not been affected because of this war. One of the most controversial decisions made in the war was to use chemicals to fight the enemy. The most boradly used chemiucal was called Agent Orange. Some people agreed with the use of Agent Orange. They saw it as a very viable weapon that needed to be used in order to keep the Communist from taking control of South Vietnam and subverting their democratic government. Many others disapproved of its use. They knew, correctly, that it would severely devastate the landscape of Vietnam and would forever ruin the land for agricultural use. They also knew of the harmful effect it would have once adults and children came in contact with the harmful chemicals that form the chemical make up of Agent Orange. Once the first bombs carrying Agent Orange were dropped there was no going back. For some people the use of Agent Orange changed their whole opinion of the war and what we were really fighting for. Pictures showing burns and disfigurement were soon to hit the presses. Once the American public could see exactly what was happening and how the civilian life was being treated impacted many people so much that they could no longer support what the United States was doing over in Vietnam. The goal of this paper is to show how the use of Agent Orange changed many people’s perspective of the war in Vietnam. Why has the use of Agent Orange become so controversial? The Americans dropped the atomic bomb to end World War II and did not have the backlash that it had, and still has, with Agent Orange. The ver... ...Ballatine Books, 1995. Schuck, Peter H. Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986. Shesol, Jeff. Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997. Spake, Amanda. â€Å"The Healing Process is Far From Done.† U.S. News and World Report 128 no. 17. 2000: 39 Uhl, Michael and Tod Ensign. GI Guinea Pigs: How the Pentagon Exposed Our Troops to Dangers More Deadly Than War: Agent Orange and Atomic Radiation. Playboy Press, 1980. Warwick, Hugh. â€Å"Agent Orange: The Poisoning of Vietnam.† The Ecologist v28 no. 5. 1998: 264-265. Wilcox, Fred A. Waiting For an Army To Die. Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press, 1989. Young, Marilyn B. The Vietnam Wars: 1945-1990. New York: Harper Perennial, 1991.

Essay --

â€Å"There’s no magic bullet; there’s no pill that you take that makes everything great and makes you happy all the time. I’m letting go of those expectations, and that’s opening me up to moments of transcendent bliss. But I still feel the stress over ‘Am I thin enough? Am I too thin? Is my body the right shape?† –Anne Hathaway. It seems as if every young girl’s desire is to become a model. Eating disorders affect an increasingly large number of people, especially young women, in today’s modern societies. One study even found that some girls are more afraid of being fat, than of a nuclear war or getting cancer. The most common types of this disorder are anorexia, bulimia, and purging, each having a discrete effect on different people. Right now, one percent of all American women- our sisters, mothers, and daughters, are starving themselves to death. â€Å"I will not eat cakes or cookies or food. I will be thin, thin, pure. I will be pure and empty. Weight dropping off. Ninety-nine... ninety-five... ninety-two... ninety. Just one more to eighty-nine. Where does it go? Where in the universe does it go?†-Francesca Lia Block. Anorexia nervosa is a serious potentially life threatening eating disorder characterized by self-starvation and excessive weight loss. 90-95% of anorexia sufferers are girls and women. It is one of the main psychiatric diagnoses and is the third most common chronic illness among adolescents. We believe that we have to be a certain weight and ideal beauty in America; it’s pretty much the main priority for teens and college students. Anorexia is mainly caused by a low self-esteem, stress, and cultural influence. Intense fear of gaining weight, loss of menstrual period, denial of food, and excessive workout are only a han... ...ological, psychological, social, and cultural factors. Many individuals with bulimia, anorexia, or binge eating disorder, do not seek help until they reach their thirties or forties when their eating is deeply ingrained and more difficult to change. Bulimia is often treated more successfully that anorexia, partly because bulimia patients usually want to be treated. Aside from interpersonal issues, such as depression and OCD, eating disorders are strongly provoked by television, electronic devices, and in some cases because of the influences presented by one's parents or friends. Many are unaware of the harm media causes toward its targeted audience. Overall, the media has completely taken over our lifestyle and continues to gain more control every day. Eating disorders don’t belong to a specific face, race, or shape. Anybody can fall victim to these sicknesses.

Family Reunion Essay

Have you ever been to or prepared a family reunion? It’s a great time for fun, food fellowship, reminiscing and also a big supplier for T-shirts. Many family celebrations are celebrated different from the way they’re celebrated on television. I attended my first family reunion when I was twelve years old, it was no ordinary family reunion; it involved my immediately family and also extended family, and lasted overnight. It was an overall fun experience and it brought me closer to my family and other unknown relatives. A family reunion on television is prepared and organized, unlike a family reunion in reality where it is sometimes unorganized. For example, a family reunion on television shows organization because they make sure everything is planned and there is no confusion such as what is going on each day of the weekend and no mix-ups or changes made and every family member has an invitation. â€Å"A family that prays together stays together†, is something my grandmother Medea would always say. I will be describing about the family reunion which brought my family and I closer together. Sadly, not all people, especially teenagers appreciate their family, getting acquainted night was our first gathering I did not realize how many family members I had, and I was very overwhelmed at first. I was reluctant to be involved and stayed close to my immediate family I honestly did not want to be where I was and also felt awkward after some time. I started liking it when we got a bit more involved in the activities, we played icebreaker games and there were a few speeches giving. The night turned out pretty fun and the family picnic was probably the most fun part of the reunion. After experiencing a gist of the reunion the night before I was ready to be more involved and reached out I got to know family members who I did not know. After a day it was as if I knew them my whole life this part of the reunion was probably the most active games were held again, and it was all laughs and good times. The family banquet was a formal event my Aunt Ariel was hosting and it closed the family reunion. The whole family gathered at the formal banquet where closing remarks were made and we spoke about the good time we had during the activities. The family reunion was concluded that we should do something like this more often, after this whole time, grandmother Medea, who was one of the older members in the family reiterated the importance of the family. Due to all the games and activities I did not realize that this reunion actually served a deeper purpose for me and it was just a very fun event. However, after much thought, I knew these words my grandmother spoke ‘’a family that prays together stays together’’ really had a lot of meaning behind them. By gathering all the members of our family, and joining together in prayer, meals and in good laughs a house that is divided cannot stand†, and family is a very important part of anyone’s life. Family is worth fighting for, also worth doing whatever it takes to see them more often or on regular basis.

Koalas Essay

Obamacare, or what is formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is federal legislation that was signed into law on March 23, 2010 by present Barak Obama. The act aims to reform national healthcare and give more people than before access to affordable healthcare. The overall goal of the act is to cover all persons regardless of their conditions or other factors. The passing of Obamacare has led to much conflict in the government and throughout the nation. In particular, recently the act has been the root of heated disagreements and government unrest among the Democrats and Republicans. Obamacare, or the concept of a nation or statewide healthcare program, is not the first of its kind. The idea dates as far back as 1989 when it was proposed to Congress. Bill and Hillary Clinton had a similar objective in the 1990’s and Mitt Romney made similar reforms in 2006 while the governor of Massachusetts. The Clinton’s health care plan was similar to Obamaâ €™s in that they were national campaigns to provide universal healthcare. Also similar was the amount of controversy both drew up in the House as well as with the American people. The newly imposed ACA has many areas in which it aims to help those who cannot afford healthcare as well as better the healthcare system in the country as a whole. The main point of Obamacare is guaranteed issue of healthcare to all people and prohibits the denial of healthcare based on prior conditions. One benefit of Obamacare is allowing children to stay on their parents’ healthcare plan until age 26. Along with guaranteed coverage, Obamacare will institute an exchange so individuals can compare prices of private insurances and purchase insurance. It is estimated that over 15 million men and women will be eligible for purchase of healthcare. Families that fall within a certain distance to the poverty line will be compensated for choosing a policy using this exchange. This is an incentive for people to utilize this plan and purchase healthcare. On the business side of things, Obamacare also pushes towards the nationalizing of healthcare. There are penalties for businesses who employ over 5o employees and do not provide healthcare. Overall there are several efforts made in many areas of the country to push for healthcare for everyone in the United States. There are many areas in which families and individuals can benefit from the Affordable Care Act. According to ObamacareFacts, Americans making less than $45,960 or families making under $94,200 are eligible for free or low-cost insurance. Also, as a result of  Obamacare 24 million people will be exempt from the Individual Mandate which requires the purchase of health insurance. It is noted that anyone who feels they cannot afford healthcare will be covered under Obamacare and granted low-cost or free insurance. Dating back to 2008 the Democrats and Republicans had been on different sides of the national healthcare debate. The senate was close to passing the bill to reform healthcare in 2009. The Democrats needed 60 votes to pass, but due to a series of events leading to some members not supporting the bill or not voting, the act was not passed. After further delegation, what previously was a disagreement of terms and conditions had Republicans and Democrats in stark opposition to one another. All Democrats were strong supports of the bill and Republicans adamantly opposed. Now, it is clear the side the Democrats take on the Affordable Care Act. The real question is, why do Republicans oppose what appears to be such a proactive and achievable goal? The topic is an intriguing one, and one that does not have one definite answer. The Republicans themselves say nothing more than that Obamacare will destroy the country. Such a powerful accusation yet no real explanation or further comments lead only to more questions than answers on their true position. There are arguments that say the ACA is detrimental to the economy, and that businesses cannot afford to spend any more money on healthcare. Another claim was that Obamacare was unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court overruled this idea. Sources outside the Republican Party see the Republicans’ dislike of Obamacare solely because they dislike Obama himself. They appear to be against Obamacare simply just to be again st Obama. Another theory is the tax increases that would come along with Obamacare. One New York Times article highlights the â€Å"real reason† as to why Republicans are opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Eduardo Porter claims that Republicans are actually afraid that the American people will like Obamacare. They do not want the US population to realize that it will not actually destroy the economy and it can actually improve the lives of many people, many Republicans to be more specific. They are fearful of the positive impacts it could have on supporters of the Republican Party. One common problem many Americans admit to having with Obamacare. The nickname Obamacare is a point many people cannot get past, and when asked if they support it or not many say they do not. But the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the actual terms  of the ACA and the steps it takes to better healthcare in the US. It could be that the simple concept of a nickname could be the main problem people have with an overall positive proposal. Although Obamacare itself has been spread out to institute new laws and regulations over the next 5-10 years, the effects of some of the early plans have already been present. ACA has already impacted the number of insured Americans and that amount is expected to continue to rise. Another change that has already been made is regarding dropping policy holders. No longer are insurance firms allowed to drop policy holders due to sickness or injury. Perhaps the most noticed and controversial part to date is the increase in healthcare costs and its effects on the national budget. The national debt limit has been a very sensitive topic and the affect Obamacare will have on it is not helping the problem. It needs to be determine the lengths necessary to go in order to make healthcare nationally available yet not impact the national debt in a way as to cause economic unrest. With a plan that has stirred up so much unrest in its early days, the future does not bode well for Obamacare. Johnathan Oberlander of the New England Journal of Medicine argues that many of the problems that the Affordable care act faces today will not be present once the act is more establis hed in several years. Once the disagreements on the actual passing of the bill fade, in come the disputes about what the act does and does not do and the boundaries of the laws. â€Å"Perhaps the most difficult long-term challenge facing Obamacare is cost control† (Oberlander, New England Journal of Medicine). Cost control is a serious issue that is seen to be a point of major contention in the future due to the lack of limits on spending. Another negative aspect of Obamacare is the affect it will have on our country in the global scheme of things. The spending on healthcare in the United States makes up 35% of the national spending, a whopping $1.38 trillion (Boot, Wall Street Journal). Much different than a time when the majority of spending was allocated to war or national security, many Americans now worry about the extent of healthcare costs in relation to other costs. Globally we are seen as a significant power, but with so much of our money dedicated to healthcare people are concerned for th e safety and protection of our nation. Along with the healthcare protection of Obamacare comes the increase in government spending, and with that comes the alarming reality of less and less spending on our national  security. In my opinion Obamacare is a very beneficial planned instituted by the government that receives an unnecessary and unfair amount of criticism. The Kaiser Health Tracker poll asked Americans whether or not they supported Obamacare and the majority were against it. However, the poll also showed that 88% were in support of tax credits, 76% in favor of expanding the coverage age of children to 26, and 71% and 66% in favor of expanding Medicaid and banning exclusions for preexisting conditions respectively. This shows that people are unfairly judging Obamacare, whether that be because of the nickname given to it or because it is President Obama’s plan. I feel that the overall objective of the plan is one that should not be so vehemently disputed and put down by Americans and other political parties. The goal of achieving a nationally supported healthcare is a very positive one that should be supported by anyone who is in favor of the well-being of our country.