Healthy Eating Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Healthy Eating - Essay Example I resumed my afternoon routine but still felt some hunger as the day wore on. At supper time I had two plates of spaghetti with minced meat and called it a day. On the second day, careful not to get entangled in the previous day’s mayhem again, I awoke in good time – enough to get myself cleaned up and prepare breakfast. I ate a plate of left over spaghetti from the previous night with a cup of coffee. During the day, I felt less hunger pangs in between meals as I had experienced on the previous day and instead of four chocolate bars, I consumed only two before lunch hour. At lunch, I had a quick meal – 2 beef burger pieces and a bottle of soda. I ate another burger at 4pm on my way home and later on at night I had a plateful of roasted meat with some beer as we enjoyed a get-together evening with a couple of friends. And yesterday, I took 2 cups of plain coffee and rushed off to get the day going. On this particular day I had very little appetite for food and so I had no snacks in between the meals (which I also labored through). At lunch time I ate a plate of meat stew with rice and a glass of water. In the evening, for supper, I again had meat but this time with spaghetti (a plateful). From my analysis of my feeding habits over the last three days and other days in general, I can conclude that I primarily consume carbohydrates/ sugars (chocolate, flavored drinks, sausages, fries, beer, rice, and spaghetti), fats (fries, sausages, chocolates, beer and meat) and proteins (beef burgers, meat). This is a very alarming and dangerous eating habit as it is lacking in a plethora of foods from other vital groups (such as vitamins). Healthy eating is an absolutely essential component toward health and well-being. What one eats, how often and how much are all vital towards attaining a healthy and balanced diet. There are numerous changes and additions that I can make in order to improve on my eating

Black Panther and Ku Klux Klan Essay Example for Free

Black Panther and Ku Klux Klan Essay After doing research to compare/contrast the two groups, the Black Panthers and the Ku Klux Klan, it opened my eyes. I realized that the new generation is oblivious to the existence of both groups and the similarities and differences in them. I researched the two different groups to see when the groups came into existence who were the members, why they fought for rights they thought they deserved and the groups involvement in violent acts and their remnants today. In World War II, blacks fought for the American dream willingly, but separately from the white soldiers. When the war was over, human rights activists of all races and educated blacks thought the soldiers and blacks deserved the right of equality. Malcolm X was one of the many human rights activists. He was an African-American Muslim minister he thought after years of non-violence, signing petitions, marching, praying and crying and blacks doing the impossible to be recognized as human beings, it was time for them to take it into their own hands. Malcolm X was then assassinated February 21, 1965. Today many of his quotes like this one are famous. And when I speak, I dont speak as a Democrat. Or a Republican. Nor an American. I speak as a victim of Americas so-called democracy. You and I have never seen democracy all weve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We dont see any American dream. Weve experienced only the American nightmare. The Black Panther Party was then founded by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale,  in 1966, it was based on ideas which were strongly associated with Malcolm Xs life works it was made up of progressive militant political organization. They advocated Black Nationalism and had strong believes in the necessity of violence and armed self-defense. They patrol African American neighborhoods to protect residents from acts of police brutality and to obtain freedom from white oppression. Fought for the rights of American blacks in the US, they called themselves Revolutionaries. Ku Klux Klan on the other hand was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee. The Klan members were many former Confederate veterans determined to fight for the right to restore white supremacy they called themselves The Invisible Empire of the South. Ku Klux Klan believed that black werent fighting for right but for special right and that Negros were happier when they had nothing not even their own name. They also showed resistance to policies that gave the right to economic equality for blacks and other minorities. The Black Panthers were non-violent they petitioned for the right for Black Americans to bear arms. Reason being the police werent there for their safety or to promote their welfare they were there to contain, brutalize and murder them. With the blacks starting to carry guns came violence. There were shootouts with police which killed many innocent people, riots that destroyed towns, blacks had means to defend themselves but then crime skyrocketed. The Black Panther werent organized as some thought and werent ready to fight a revolution they just wanted to be treated like an equal and were ready for anything that crossed there path. Ku Klux Klan had and still have a very violent disposition, they could terrorized the black and any other minorities that they thought threatened their white purity as they referred. Being that the sheriff upheld the rights of the Klan and courts upheld the rights of the sheriff. The Klan killed civil right helpers blacks and whites. Civil rights helpers assisted blacks learn to read so that they could vote as well as getting them to the poles to vote. KKK burned many churches, schools and were involved in lynching of hundreds. Now after two decades of failure 1982 was the official end of the Black Panther Party they did accomplish one thing a major change in police brutality in Oakland went way down. Black Panther also went back to square one the non-violence approach, by setting up organization to help needy family such as free clinic and free meal programs. Educated blacks and activist in this generation are very disappointed in blacks not getting involved and how they accept the minimum for themselves. KKK on the other hand are still very prominent and doubled in size. They even still to this day try to recruit new members by putting flyers with candy on doors in residential areas, doing pod cast, and even do interviews to try to convince the public what they are doing is right and isnt racist as all. They are even trying to adopt highways in some states which judges arent allowing, even after they try to convince them its to keep nature clean.

Ethical Dilemmas Of Animal Testing

Ethical Dilemmas Of Animal Testing This report is based on the Literature Review about ethical dilemma that arises over the controversy of using Animals for Testing and Research Studies. We have tried to explain in brief about Animal Testing and discussed broadly with the Ethical Theories that support and argue about the Use of Animals. We have also tried to relate all the ethical dilemma with respect to PG, who over the past decade has been constantly facing the allegations over the use of Animal Testing to ensure that their consumers get Safe Products. We have tried to come to a conclusion on how Animal Testing can be reduced, if not completely eradicated. At the same time we have voiced our opinions on the use of various alternatives to Animal Testing. Overview of Animal Testing The Use of Animals for test observations and Experimentations for the greater understanding of reactions from a particular substance or raw material that goes into some goods or medicines that we consumers consume can be termed as Animal Testing. Or you can say the use of non-human animals experimentations to prevent pain and sufferings to human beings A number of companies that produced goods for personal and hygiene care have emerged from the mid to late nineteenth century and this resulted in the number of animal tests and experiments to grow exponentially. The main reasons for those tests were medical research, to cure illness and test chemical compounds used to develop new products. Those tests were conducted in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and even farms. The vast amounts of animals that are being tested on are mice, monkeys, cats, dogs and guinea pigs. However, certain types of animals are used for different types of research for instance mice for cancer research, dogs for transplant surgery and cats for psychological experiments. Moreover, most of those animals that are being tested on are purposely-bred and supplied by the specialists companies, others usually come from the pound or are just caught in the wild. Over 100 million animals in North America alone will be killed in animal tests this year. Animal testing has been going on for years, a lot of companies test their products on animals, some of these tests consist of restraining animals and dropping chemicals into their eyes, the scientists also forcefully pump the chemicals into the animals stomach though a tube to see how it reacts to the chemical. These experiments are sometimes carried without anesthesia which makes it extremely painful for the animal. After observing the reactions for a number of days the animal is either destroyed or re-used in other experiments, most experiments consist of burning, stabbing and drugging animals. The thing is that animals react to drugs differently than we do so the results cant accurately be applied to humans so why do scientists do it? Since we cannot legally conduct tests on ourselves as humans, we look at the creatures that are right below us, animals. However, some of us dont seem to notice animals have feelings and can experience pain just as we would. As Jeremy Bentham would ask, The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But can they suffer? Testing Animal Testing and Ethical Dilemma Introduction The rise in the consumer dominance has led the organizations to adopt the use of various artificially derived chemicals for use in production of Personal and Hygiene Goods. At the same time, medical advances and pharmaceutical companies acknowledge the use of animals for research studies and experimentation. This has raised various doubts about our ethics. Testing on Animals for chemical substance reactions to ensure consumer safety and drive innovative techniques is believed to be inhumane by some, while others agree that Animal Testing saves LIFE. This research paper evaluates the ethical dilemma borne by us. Animal Testing Define The obvious questions that are raised here are about the whole concept of Animal Testing and why is it necessary? Most of us are made to believe that Animal Testing is simply the torture of animals, striping them of their rights and cruel treatment of animals. This Definition of Animal Testing might have derived from various organizations that do not support the idea of Animal Research Studies as a whole and demand ethical treatment of animals through unjust terrifying acts of demonstrations and protests. These are the organizations who believe Animals have RIGHTS. It was argued upon by Robert Goldberg (1990) at the Washington conference of Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal with top dignitaries of the Humane Society about the issue of euthanizing millions of stray animals in public interest, and why the ruckus of using the same animals for the use in lab-testing. It was also argued upon at the conference over how activists have been indulged in terrorist like activities, as demonstrated by various raids at numerous labs conducting experiments on animals. The irony is, we as humans, will never be willing to come up and accept the fact that if we dont test the substances on Us, Animals are the next best alternatives to ensure Safety. There has always been an argument that animal testing results are inaccurate and also it is expensive to perform tests, secondly, animal testing is inhumane, and thirdly, there are alternatives to animal testing. According to former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only 5%-25% of the time. Then looking at Tony Pages Vivisection Unveiled it states that less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. In the tests of LD/50 short for Lethal Dose 50 per cent, a test wherein the animals receive a continuous dose of a dangerous chemical until half of them die , the Humane Society of the United States states that LD/50 tests do not yield enough data on the following: the poisonous doses of a chemical or substance, the prediction of poisoning signs and symptoms, the prevention or correction of over doses, and the specific cause of death in laboratory animals. Finally, looking at PETAs fact sheets, they argue that In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too. The drugs thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences fo r the humans who used them. The cost of animal testing is about $136 billion each year. Ethical Dilemma : Corporate Assessment PG Despite the fact that reliable modern humane tests are available in these days, Procter and Gamble insist on testing on animals claiming that this is the last resort that makes sure of their products safety. Whether it is ethical or unethical for Procter and Gamble to test on helpless animals is the question raised in this ethical dilemma. The case is analyzed and ethically evaluated based on: Deontological Theories Teleological Theories Casuist Theory All of these ethical theories aim at a common set of goals which are the ethical principles and that includes Beneficence, Least Harm, Respect for autonomy, and Justice. Deontological Theories: Deontological theories focus mainly on duties, obligations and rights. One of the most common deontological theories is the Kantianism which is known of its two formulations the Categorical Imperative I and the Categorical Imperative II. PRO ANIMAL TESTING: A scientist at Procter and Gamble would raise the question: is it right for humans to test on animals to save human lives? The proposed rule would be that humans can and have the right to test on animals in order to save human lives. So if we universalize the rule: it is accepted for humans to test and experiments with animals in order to save human lives. Furthermore, According to Immanuel Kant- the German philosopher- the only thing with any basic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good will; they therefore do not have any basic value. Hence, it is ethical to test on animals because it saves humans lives. Procter and Gambles scientist would argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. CON ANIMAL TESTING: A scientist working at Body Shop raise the question: Can Procter and Gamble mistreat and torture an animal claiming that this is the only way to make sure of their products safety? The proposed rule would be that organizations and companies can torture animals and demonstrate hideous experiments on them just because they believe that human beings are superiors to animals by being rational and intelligent. So if we universalize the rule, then a person can apply scientific experiments on any irrational unintelligent creature. Hence, that would include babies and people with mental difficulties and this would definitely be considered immoral and unethical on so many levels. That leads to the fact that although animals are irrational creatures, they feel the pain and the torture exercised on them. Thus, Procter and Gambles testing on animals can be termed unethical. Categorical Imperative II implies that individuals should act in a way that leads to a mutual benefit, treating both parties as ends in themselves. According to the case, animals are being misused in a way that is only considered beneficial for the human kind by Procter and Gamble. In other words, animals are being used as means to an end. Therefore, Procter and Gambles actions towards animals are unethical. Other deontological theories focus on the rights rather than duties and obligations. This leads to the controversial question: Do animals have rights? Even though there is no law that clearly states that animal rights are equal to human rights, animal rights campaigners have stated that animals have the right to live free from human exploitation, whether in the name of science or sport, exhibition or service, food or fashion. Animals have the right to live in harmony with their nature rather than according to human desires. Injecting chemical substances into a rabbits eye for seven days to produce a Head and Shoulders shampoo deprive him from any of these rights. Applying cancer and toxicity tests on rats and mice of optical brighteners and other laundry detergent ingredients leave them with no rights as well. These are just examples of the various experiments applied on animals in Procter and Gambles laboratories. Thus, testing on animals is unethical. Teleological Theories: Teleological theories focus on the consequences and the results of an action. Both of the Utilitarianism theories are perfect examples of such theories. An Act Utilitarians main objective is to take the action or the decision that would maximize the benefits for most people regardless of constraints such as law. On the other hand, a Rule Utilitarian takes into consideration justice and fairness as well as beneficence for most people. PRO ANIMAL TESTNG: Those who argue for the continuation of painful experimentation on animals state that society has an obligation to act in ways that will minimize harm and maximize benefits. Halting or curtailing painful experimentation on animals would have harmful consequences to society. Indeed, pain is an evil to be minimized, and scientists at Procter and Gamble do work to minimize pain when possible. Contrary to sensationalistic reports of animal rights activists, Procter and Gambles scientists are not a society of crazed, cruel, curiosity seekers. But there are instances when the use of alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives. Animal research has been the basis for new vaccines, new cancer therapies, artificial limbs and organs, new surgical techniques, and the development of hundreds of useful products and materials. These benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in suffering that relatively few animals have had to endure. Society has an obligation to maximize the opportunities to produce such beneficial consequences, even at the cost of inflicting some pain on animals. CON ANIMAL TESTING: From an Act Utilitarian point of view, Procter and Gambles animal testing does not only harm the whole animal kingdom; it is harming the human race and the environment as well. Animal testing is one of the main reasons of having various animals such as chimpanzees, macaques and white rhinos under threat, the threat of extinction. And as clarified earlier, animal testing is not the adequate way to save human lives. On the contrary, it is putting their lives in danger as well. A Rule Utilitarian who takes into account fairness and justice would add to the previous points that there is neither justice nor fairness applied when human beings use animals as disposable machines claiming that this is the only way to save as much human lives as possible (which is of course not true). Thus, According to the Act and Rule Utilitarianism theories animal testing held by Procter and Gamble is unethical. Casuist Theory: The casuist theory compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of similar ethical and their outcomes. PRO ANIMAL TESTING: Comparing our current ethical dilemma of Animal Testing and contrast the same with use of Canines as human companions, or use of animals for human safety would raise more doubts about our sincerity and perseverance to the issues raised in our society. Do we fail to conceptualize the degree of our social environment that would create a clear ethical ground that justifies why we do what we do. Although most of the training is under acceptable standards, some safety patrol dogs need rigorous training which can be brutal and inhumane. CON ANIMAL TESTING: Looking at the issue from a casuistic point of view, a perfect similar ethical dilemma would be of human slavery. Caucasians used to believe that they are superior to others and therefore used to slave Africans and treat them in a very inhuman way claiming that by doing so they are maximizing the benefits for the whole world. This was considered one of the norms back in those dark times. Nowadays it is considered immoral, unethical and completely unacceptable in every nation and society to treat another human being in an inferior way. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states now that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Peoples awareness for human rights has been increasing throughout the years and this was the reason behind this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, scientists at Procter and Gamble are still unaware of the fact that animals are entitled to have their own rights. They are oblivious to the fact that we as human beings have no right to mistreat animals. They have no right as human beings to capture them, torture them and kill them with no mercy under the veil of saving human lives. On the contrary, animals should have the right to live peacefully with their nature and we as the rational creatures on this earth are obligated to defend the helpless kingdom and protect them from any harm. Thus, animal testing at Procter and Gambles laboratories can be simply ceased by declaring it unethical. Consumers First Looking at the whole idea from PGs point of view. According to PGs Human Safety Brochure and Sustainability (2009) overview, we have to first realize the fact that on an average about 4 billion people in the world use PG products every single day. This makes it their utmost priority that they reduce the risk of any type to the end-user. It has been for this very fact, that PG has been indulged in Animal Testing. The underlying factor here is that, we, as Humans, would be biased over the fact that if a particular product is tested on animals, and is guaranteed not to harm us or our children, we instantly change our opinion about the use of Animal Testing. According to Davis and Donald, we cannot have the ultimate assurance of the safety in the products we buy and use independent of animal testing. They specifically quote with present day technology, if the cost of achieving such assurance mandates the sacrifice of an occasional hairless mouse or rabbit or laboratory rat, then it is a price that we are prepared to pay. It is a delusion and a sham at this point to say we can achieve one without the other. Although the Ban on animal testing in various countries have given rise to various companies that are not indulged in Animal Testing, the Body Shop was one company that started off even before the ban with one view in mind Cruelty Free products. Many Researchers and Authors like Goldemberg and Robert (1992), believe that although a companys final product may not be tested on animals, but there is always a chance that down the line, some of the ingredients used were tested on animals by its suppliers or somebody else in the industry. Conclusion Medical Advances such as various vaccines, Insulin, treatment for kidney through dialysis, etc. Has been possible as a result of animal testing. At the same the use of various personal care products such has shampoos and cosmetics have been certified safe for human consumption as a result of constant development through Animal testing and research. During this journey, we have failed on many occasions to successfully justify animal testing when researches have gone wrong and caused harm and in certain cases death to Humans. Although we understand that Animal Testing has resulted in numerous data and statistics that would help generate computer simulation models and prove as a bench mark for further research, we can never stop Animal Testing as whole as it is fueled by our hunger for innovation. There is always room for efficiency and least harm. This can be achieved by the 3Rs theory developed by British zoologists William Russel and Rex Burch in 1959. The theory focuses on Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal testing and experimentations.

Product Life Cycle: iPod Essay -- Apple Ipod Product Essays Papers

Product Life Cycle: iPod Development of the iPod: The iPod is a portable digital music player that holds up to ten thousand songs in a small, hand-held device that is lighter and thinner than two CD cases. iPod features a touch-sensitive navigational wheel and buttons, and an intuitive interface designed for one-handed operation. Songs are stored in several digital audio formats, delivering the highest sound quality. The iPod was born out of the idea dreamed up by Tony Fadell, an independent contractor and hardware expert, to take an MP3 player, build a Napster music sale service to complement it, and build a company around it. Fadell shopped the idea around to several companies and was turned away by all of them, except Apple. Apple hired Fadell in early 2001 and assigned him a team of about 30 people to develop the iPod. Fadell predicted that the iPod would remold Apple and that 10 years from now it would be a music business, rather than a computer business. Introduction of the iPod: The iPod was introduced into the market just in time for Christmas, 2001. The first iPod was priced at $399. Apple relied on a hard disk for storage instead of flash memory or interchangeable CD-Roms and focused on promoting the uniqueness of the small size, power, and ease of use of the device. This first iPod had a 5 GB storage capacity—which is enough to hold over 1,000 songs—and it worked only on Macs, using iTunes as a music organization and CD-to-iPod conversion tool. iTunes, digital jukebox software that let Mac users import songs from CDs by converting audio files to the MP3 format and storing them on the computer’s hard drive, was introduced in January of 2001. Along with the iPod, Apple announced an enhanced version of iTunes that included a 10-band equalizer with presets, as well as a cross fading feature for smoother transitions from one song to another. An Auto Sync capability facilitated the downloading of music from a Mac to the new portable media device. Once the music was downloaded, Apple promised 10 hours of continuous play from the iPod’s rechargeable lithium battery. The device supported MP3, with bit rates of up to 320kbits/s, as well as AIFF and WAV file formats. Its amplifier could deliver 20-20,000-Hz frequency response. Apple sold 125,000 iPods by the end of December 2001. During this introduction stage, the quality level of the iPod was ... ...arly 2.5 years, iPod shipments are approximately 1 million units ahead of the Walkman’s pace after being on the market for the same period of time. During the 80s-90s, Sony sold over 300 million Walkmans. Given this information, it appears that iPod is showing no signs of being close to the decline stage in the near future. In summary, I believe that the iPod is still in the growth stage of its life cycle. According to Roger Kay, IDC analyst, Apple is very good at releasing its iPod generations with incremental features which lure in new users and tempt other users to upgrade. Because of this, some iPod users have several generations of the player, and it is probable that mini owners also could follow that course. Apple now has a full product family that capitalizes on the original iPod’s success. Looking at the entire iPod line, the iPod is becoming a platform in of itself within Apple, as essentially a subsidiary within Apple. Based on the information I have read, Apple has many avenues that it could take with future development of the iPod and similar capabilities. The indicators show that the iPod will continue to have substantial success for a significant period of time.

The Powerful Nations of Imperialists

Imperialism is the practice by which powerful nations or peoples seek to extend and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples. By the 1800†³s, the Western powers had advantages in this process. They led the world in technological advances, giving them a dominance when conquering other countries. The European Imperialists made attempts to conquer China and Japan. In this process, they succeeded by influencing Japan greatly. However, they were not as successful with China. At the end of the eighteenth century, China†s goods were much desired by Britain. However, the Chinese saw Europeans as savages and did not want to trade with them. During trade, there was an imbalance in China†s favor, because the Europeans were forced to buy Chinese goods using silver. The Western Imperialists began to grow opium poppies from in India, and then smuggle them into China. China soon became addicted to the drug and spent most of it†s money on the purchase of it from the Europeans and Americans. This shifted the balance of power to be in Europe†s favor. In the early 1800†³s, Japan had blocked off all trade from other countries. Foreign whaling ships could not even reload or repair their ships in Japan territory. This offended many other countries. In 1852, Matthew Perry was sent to Japan to negotiate open trade. Japan felt threatened by the United States, and gave in to their demands. Japan was frightened by their stipulations, and immediately began to reform. They developed a new education system that was similar to America and Europe†s. They also developed a Western style judiciary system. Japan and China reacted differently to the reforms of Imperialism. When put under pressure, Japan succumbed to the power of Western Imperialist ideas. Conversely, China, resisted for a long time. As a result, Japan had more technology, while China was unenlightened of the new advances. Japan also gained more respect from other countries, that China did not have. In the long run, Japan gained more by yielding to the Historically, states have been motivated to pursue imperialism for a variety of reasons, which may be classified broadly as economic, political, and ideological. The imperialism of China and Japan in the nineteenth century helped shape the way the countries are today. Japan†s culture, education, government, and other issues are based on the influences of America and Europe from years ago.

Mr. Stephens Dignity essays

Mr. Stephen's Dignity essays In reading Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, one is impressed by the apparent control of emotions Mr Stephens, the butler of Darlington Hall, is able to command. This apparent control can be viewed in a variety of ways. Jack Slay, Jr., in his article "The Remains of the Day" writes that Mr. Stephens has performed the ultimate sacrifice, in maintaining his control (his dignity) as his emotions would naturally wish to lead him otherwise. George Watson discusses the myth of the silent servant in his commentary "The Remains of the Day" and portrays Mr. Stephens as wimpy, one could say. I tend to agree more with Mr. George Watson; I see Mr. Stephens' inability to come to terms with his emotions and feelingsor at least to be able to confront them, and realize they are a viable part of his existenceas an important character trait he should work on. Inexperience can signify ignorance, according to Watson, and he feels that the novel portrays servants in a misguided way: he feels they (the servants in the novel) embody the myth that they are to be always-silent, and all-but-invisible beings (481). I can agree with this viewpoint, as Mr. Stephens demonstrates again and again that he is to merely serve the master of the house, and to wait on his guests with perfunctory and immaculate control and manners, despite his personal viewpoints or thoughts. Mr. Stephens does not allow himself to stray from this set commands. Slay also writes that Mr. Stephens "performs his job with selflessness and a ruthless suppression of emotion" (180). Mr. Stephens, at one point in the novel, describes dignity as not taking one's clothes off in public. But I think he means it to be much deeper than that, as expressed in his recollections on his life, when he ruminates on the night of his fathers death, and declares to himself that this was the epitome of his service, a " ...