Vouch for Versace Essay Example for Free

Vouch for Versace Essay Don’t let your clothing wear on your bank account (if you’re a teenager) ‘’ Young people spend too much money on clothes and are too often influenced by brands and designer labels’’ This is in fact the distressing reality my friends. You see how narrow-mindedly we teenagers are perceived. In actual fact at least 7 out of 10 people would agree with that statement. Unquestionably scandalous, isn’t it? Anyone who isn’t a teenager is entitled to spend ‘too much’ money on clothes, or rather, they won’t be deemed as the easily ‘influenced’ youth of today. What is ‘too much’ money anyway, where is that line which, when crossed, says that you have spent too much on your clothes? I’ll tell you exactly where it is- nowhere. That line does not even exist as a fine line, and it just simply cannot be. Many people seem to forget that that it cannot exist due to the fact that we save up money with the intention of using it to buy clothes; I would hardly call that spending too much when that is in fact the only thing we desire to spend on. I have to grant that many people agree with this statement on the valid basis that clothes are not as important as other things that teenagers should be spending their money on, such as school equipment and resources, community, sport and what not. Nonetheless most of that is and should be paid for by parents should it not? After all since education is so vital and imperative shouldn’t your parents provide you with all the resources and equipment you require in order to do your greatest? On the other hand your parents may be paying for all that already, but they may also be funding your regular shopping sprees, especially for all you girls out there! All those accessories and make up products must come up to a hefty sum. Studies show that 68% of teenagers get their parents to pay for their outfits and extra apparel, 43% of these teenagers being girls. This study shows that teenagers obsession with designer labels and clothes in general seems to have had a knock on effect on their parents. Some may even wonder, ‘why do they actually need to dress different? ‘’ I’ll tell you why. We have been mobbed into society’s misconception of teenagers. In fact, we spend money on clothes in order to actually go against these stereotypes that we are time and again stapled with. Many of you would agree with me when I say that by spending money on clothes we are in fact expressing our individuality as young people. What else can we do to overcome these stereotypes that we are stuck with? As far as being ‘’often influenced by brands and designer  labels’’, we do not just go for brands. We are young adults and we are aware of financial issues around us, so why would we waste money continuously to replace our clothes? Would it not be better to spend a fair bit of money on a designer brand that can assure you of its quality? By purchasing designer labels and brands we are essentially saving money in the long run, after all do they not say quality over quantity- or in this case the cost. Just because we take a liking to designer labels does not necessarily mean that we are victims of celebrity peddling. Conversely many people agree that teenagers are most definitely influenced by designer labels and brands, and I agree with this quite a bit because it is in fact a truth, however they are not to blame. Many young people only wear designer brands because their friends are too. They wear it to, well, fit in I guess. Peer pressure plays a huge part in young people’s lives, such as you. You just want to fit in and not become that kid who has no sense of style don’t you? It segregates you; it shows the divide between the rich and the poor, and if you’re lucky it elevates your social status. Furthermore the other way teenagers such as yourselves are influenced into buying only the designer l abels and brands is due to the relentless influence of celebrities who promote these labels and brands in order to generate money for themselves. Nowadays many young people have access to the latest fashion through all media. You and many others can become victims of this celebrity peddling, and sooner or later you can become entangled in this fashion conscious loop. I mean, you’re always going to find something that’s more fashionable are you not? Obviously you’ll want to keep up with the latest style and inevitably you will eventually become a victim just like so many others before you. There is one thing that is a perk of being selective about your clothing. By being discerning about who you buy your clothes from you may just be doing something good. Just imagine, if you bought that t-shirt from Primark then how much would the poor young children who made that shirt after hard labour get paid? Exactly, you know they’ll get practically nothing. Yet by purchasing higher brand apparel you are in fact taking into consideration the ethical side of fashion. You may seem confused by that statement; however, there is an ethical side to everything, including clothes. Many people are picky about the clothes they buy because of religious reasons. Perhaps they need their clothes to be long and cover their body properly, who knows? It is a likely  possibility though that the reason that we teenagers spend a lot of money on clothes is simply because we need, not want them. Sad to say when asked 86 out of 100 people said that they strongly agreed that teenagers spent too much money on clothes even after being given the full picture as to why you pay so much attention and money on your clothing. One person actually said ‘’ Advertisers are exploiting young people and their desire to conform’’. Even after being told how some young people are actually paying these prices to prove to people that they are not conforming because of advertisers, rather, because of society and how they regard teenagers as a whole generation. This was all quite amusing actually, after all, who raised this ‘’Influenced’’ generation .Not me.

Essay on the American Dream Revised in Song of Solomon -- Song Solomon

The American Dream Revised in Song of Solomon      Ã‚   America was founded on the belief that "all men are created equal." However, a question must be posed which asks who constitutes "men" and what is "equal"?   Africans were taken from their country and enslaved in America. They had to fight to retain dignity and grace in circumstances that were deplorable. Even slaves who were well taken care of were not able to realize the dream of being free again.    In her work, Song of Solomon, Toni Morrison relates a story of the dream of Milkman.   Although he is not a slave, Milkman is enslaved by the fact that as a child, he was forced to participate in a shameful act that he wanted no part of. Even his nickname was derived from this horrific act:      When he came into the little room she unbuttoned her blouse and smiled. He was too young to be dazzled by her nipples, but he was old enough to be bored by the flat taste of mother's milk, so he came reluctantly, as to a chore, and lay as he had at least once each day of his life in his mother's arms, and tried to pull the thin, faintly sweet mild from her flesh without hurting her with his teeth. (13)    This act embarrassed Ruth and Macon Jr. because he was never able to shake the nickname and it did not improve either one's relationship with his father. Milkman could not control the whims of his mother though he suspected the act was wrong. Macon did not respect his son's voice as seen when Milkman strikes his father for striking his mother. Milkman does not want to hear Macon's explanations for his behavior and is appalled that Macon insists on describing the indiscriminant nature of Ruth's attachment to her father as the excuse for Milkman's father's treatment... ...m is not an open invitation to Africans like it is to other immigrant groups. They are not voluntary participants in American society; therefore, they must settle for less than others have to. They must fight twice as hard to have half as much as others.    Works Cited: De Arman, Charles. "Milkman as the Archetypal Hero." Obsidian: Black Literature in Review 6.3 (1980): 56-59. Moraru, Christian. "Reading the Onomastic Text: 'The politics of the Proper Name' in Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon." Names: A Journal of Onomastics. 44.3 (1996): 189-204. Morrison, Toni. Song of Solomon. New York: The Penguin Group, 1977. Peterson, Nancy J. Toni Morrison: Critical and Theoretical Approaches. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. Storhoff, Gary. "'Anaconda Love': Parental Enmeshment in Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon." Style 31.2 (1997): 290-309.   

Paul Krugman, in Praise of Cheap Labor Bad Jobs at Bad Wages Are Better Than No Jobs at All.

In Praise of Cheap Labor Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all. By  Paul Krugman|Posted Friday, March 21, 1997, at 3:30 AM ET For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and children lived on that dump–enduring the stench, the flies, and the toxic waste in order to make a living combing the garbage for scrap metal and other recyclables. And they lived there voluntarily, because the $10 or so a squatter family could clear in a day was better than the alternatives. Advertisement The squatters are gone now, forcibly removed by Philippine police last year as a cosmetic move in advance of a Pacific Rim summit. But I found myself thinking about Smokey Mountain recently, after reading my latest batch of hate mail. The occasion was an op-ed piece I had written for theNew York Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are appalling, they are a big improvement over the â€Å"previous, less visible rural poverty. I guess I should have expected that this comment would generate letters along the lines of, â€Å"Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job–as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour. † Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization–of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad. But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers. After all, global poverty is not something recently invented for the benefit of multinational corporations. Let's turn the clock back to the Third World as it was only two decades ago (and still is, in many countries). In those days, although the rapid economic growth of a handful of small Asian nations had started to attract attention, developing countries like Indonesia or Bangladesh were still mainly what they had always been: exporters of raw materials, importers of manufactures. Inefficient manufacturing sectors served their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas, but generated few jobs. Meanwhile, population pressure pushed desperate peasants into cultivating ever more marginal land or seeking a livelihood in any way possible–such as homesteading on a mountain of garbage. Given this lack of other opportunities, you could hire workers in Jakarta or Manila for a pittance. But in the mid-'70s, cheap labor was not enough to allow a developing country to compete in world markets for manufactured goods. The entrenched advantages of advanced nations–their infrastructure and technical know-how, the vastly larger size of their markets and their proximity to suppliers of key components, their political stability and the subtle-but-crucial social adaptations that are necessary to operate an efficient economy–seemed to outweigh even a tenfold or twentyfold disparity in wage rates. A  nd then something changed. Some combination of factors that  we still don't fully understand–lower tariff barriers, improved telecommunications, cheaper air transport–reduced the disadvantages of producing in developing countries. (Other things being the same, it is still better to produce in the First World–stories of companies that moved production to Mexico or East Asia, then moved back after experiencing the disadvantages of the Third World environment, are common. In a substantial number of industries, low wages allowed developing countries to break into world markets. And so countries that had previously made a living selling jute or coffee started producing shirts and sneakers instead. Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are, inevitably, paid very little and expected to endure terrible working conditions. I say â€Å"inevitably† because their employers are not in business for their (or their workers') health; they pay as little as po ssible, and that minimum is determined by the other opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive compared with the alternatives. And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing–and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates–has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough–say, in South Korea or Taiwan–average wages start to approach what an American teen-ager can earn at McDonald's. And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps. (Smokey Mountain persisted because the Philippines, until recently, did not share in the export-led growth of its neighbors. Jobs that pay better than scavenging are still few and far between. ) The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished–but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help–foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better. Why, then, the outrage of my correspondents? Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land–or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap? The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages  for our benefit–and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions. This sounds only fair–but is it? Let's think through the consequences. First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off. And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries. You may say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of sneakers for the affluent. But what is the alternative? Should they be helped with foreign aid? Maybe–although the historical record of regions like southern Italy suggests that such aid has a tendency to promote perpetual dependence. Anyway, there isn't the slightest prospect of significant aid materializing. Should their own governments provide more social justice? Of course–but they won't, or at least not because we tell them to. And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard–that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items. In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty

Should Animals Be Used For Medical Testing - 1302 Words

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do. Most of the animals use in research are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. Those animals like birds and mice are not protected because for the federal law, these animals are not in the animal category. The worst part of this is that those animals that are not protected are the ones most often used for testing. This animals are tortured in many ways and law does not do anything to protect them. In fact, even the animals that are protected by the AWA are harmed. They are exposed to a lot of harmful procedures. It have been cases were the same animals harm their selves due to all the stress they have to pass by. Imagine how much stress one need to be to be able to cause pain to itself. Animals can feel pain just as humans do. When scientist talk about the similarities between humans and animals they do not consider the similarity of the pain. Believe it or not animalsShow MoreRelatedShould Animal Testing Be Used For Medical Purposes? Essay1884 Words   |  8 PagesShould animal testing be used only for medical purposes in New Zealand? By Jihad Mohd Erfino Introduction: Animal testing is one of the most controversial scientific issues debated around the world. It questions the right of wild animals to be used in commercial, cosmetics and even for medical research purposes. Although it happens in most of the world (including New Zealand) today, many question whether it should go on. Animal testing is generally the use of animals for different purposes in labRead MoreHow Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical1309 Words   |  6 Pagescontributions of animal testing to global medical science justify whether or not it should be banned? According to the Humane Society International (HSI), animal testing or animal experimentation for medical research refers to the experimentation on live animals for the purposes of investigation on diseases, medical treatments, or fundamental biology. Charles Gross, a former member of the History of Neuroscience committee of the global Society for Neuroscience, states that animals were used for improvingRead MoreAnimal Testing Should Be Banned Essay1632 Words   |  7 Pages Animal Testing Should Be Banned Throughout the decades, animals have been used in medical research to test the safety of cosmetics including makeup, hair products, soaps, perfume, and countless of other products. Animals have also been used to test antibiotics and other medicines to eliminate any potential risks that they could cause to humans. The number of animals worldwide that are used in laboratory experiments yearly exceeds 115 million animals. Unfortunately, only a small percentage ofRead MoreAnimal Testing Should Not Be Banned1721 Words   |  7 Pages † Today, more animals are being used in experiments than ever before: around 100 million in the United States alone† (3). Animal testing is now an international issue, and it is becoming a major story. Currently, animals are often used in medical testing, make-up testing, and other consumer product testing. Animals used in such product testing are often abused and suffer from serious side-effects. Animal testing can be painful for the animals, testing results are usually not even useable forRead MoreAnimal Testing Should Not Be Banned Essay1369 Words   |  6 Pagesheartbreaking, miserable animals: that is what comes to mind when animal testing is mentioned. While some of it may be true, testing animals for medical reasons is necessary. Animal testing has led to the advancement of medical research and has help device many medicines, it is the reason animal testing is still being used. The fact that experimenting on animals has led to great medical discoveries, does n ot mean that animal testing is not morally ambiguous. Animal testing has many flaws and reasonsRead MoreEssay on Animal Research Bill655 Words   |  3 Pages Animal Testing Bill Section One: This bill will set rules to any make-up company creating cosmetic products for humans. Companies who create the make-up must have the product tested on animals before testing on humans. Section Two: Congress hereby finds and declares that cosmetics has been flawed because of it’s lack of sufficient research. In order to fulfill an efficient research (synonym), cosmetic companies should undergo animal testing. Products created by the company should firstRead MoreAnimal Testing Is A Controversial Issue For A Significant Time Frame Essay1321 Words   |  6 PagesAnimal testing Abstract: Animal testing also known as animal experimentation has become a controversial issue for a long time.Testing on animals has enormously increased with the advancement of research and development in medical field. Animals are used as experimental models to test the products, medicines and chemicals before they are released in to the market.However,testing on animals is a cruel act and should not be encouraged to carry experiments on animals for human benefits.As we knowRead MoreThe Use Of Zebrafish With Spinal Injuries1430 Words   |  6 PagesContinue Animal Experimentation In her lab, Catherina Becker studies the capability of zebrafish with spinal injuries to reconstruct their spinal cord. For the zebrafish to accomplish this, it has to do many things. First, various kinds of immune cells must leave the area of the injury. Then, it has to reconnect the contact between the brain and the spinal cord. And finally, the stem cells in the spinal cord must create new cells in order to be attached to the muscles. In studying this skill used by zebrafishRead MoreMedical Testing on Animals is Considered Animal Cruelty Essay1020 Words   |  5 PagesResearch on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC. Over 25 million animals are tested in labs every year. They are used for medical and scientific research. The animals used in research often undergo cruel experimentations and suffer through the pain. During medical testing, less than 2% of human illnesses are seen in animals, therefor medical testing on animals is cruel and pointless. Medical test ing on animals should be illegal because products that pass animal tests end up harmingRead MoreSave Animals. Say No to Animal Testing!1390 Words   |  6 PagesArgumentative essay: Save animals. Say no to animal testing! Nowadays, it is a well-known fact that many companies test their products like cosmetics and medicines with animals before production to check their products ’safety and quality. A huge amount of animals are used in research purpose every year. Is it right for human beings to sacrifice millions of animals for testing purpose? Should animal testing be banned? Animal testing is a controversial issue and there is a heated debated about pros