The New U.S. Meat Industry essays

The New U.S. Meat Industry essays The new U.S. meat industry of food retailers, meat processors, and farms and ranches coalesce into fewer and larger businesses are emerging. These new giants like Wal-Mart could drive up food prices for consumers and drive down livestock prices for consumers and drive down livestock prices for producers. Grocery stores have merged or acquired other stores, spawning several major grocery chains and large general merchandise stores and warehouse clubs have appeared on the retail scene. While market power seems to be uprising public policy ensures that all participants will benefit from the new structure. With this new structure the number of meat processing firms has dwindled rapidly, boosting the market share held by the industrys largest players while the number of slaughter plants have plunged. Food demand and technology are the two forces of the meat industrys transformation to a more compact structure. Consumers are looking for food that is easy to prepare while also promising safe eating, improved nutrition, and greater consistency. The U.S. food market is notoriously slow growing with food spending rising more slowly than consumer incomes. Consumers are buying more conveniently prepared food products of consistent quality, despite the sluggish growth of over all food spending. With increased consumption from poultry profit margins in the beef and pork processing industries tightened. Meat is the single largest expenditure item in the consumer grocery cart, and livestock represents the single biggest item on U.S. agricultures income statement. The Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act express the nations commitment to a free market economy where competition benefits both consumer and businesses. This new structure should reflect these laws and expectations that benefit all participants. ...

Definition and Examples of Composition-Rhetoric

Definition and Examples of Composition-Rhetoric Composition-rhetoric is the theory and practice of teaching writing, especially as it is carried out in composition courses in colleges and universities in the U.S. Also known as composition studies and composition and rhetoric. The term composition-rhetoric emphasizes the function of rhetoric (with its 2,500-year tradition) as an underlying theory of composition (a relatively new invention, as Steven Lynn points out in Rhetoric and Composition, 2010). In the United States, the academic discipline of composition-rhetoric has evolved rapidly over the past 50 years. Examples and Observations When we discuss rhetoric and composition, we are really talking about a much more complex set of interactions than the phrase implies. Our scholarly literature is rife with examples of rhetoric for composition, composition reacting to rhetoric, and rhetoric in composition. Of these, rhetoric in composition provides the most opportunities for integration of rhetorical theories and the teaching of composition. However, we seem easily sidetracked by the vagueness of and, the seeming simplicity of for. (Jillian Kathryn Skeffington, Looking for Rhetoric in Composition: A Study in Disciplinary Identity. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona, 2009)When conjoined with composition, rhetoric is generally understood as the broader field of subject matter. But many who locate themselves in composition studies . . . identify their intellectual projects with a variety of broader knowledge enterprises besides or instead of rhetoric. These include, for instance, literacy, linguistics, or discourse studies; cultural studies; English; English education; and communication. . . . College composition itself (originally freshman English), once isomorphic with the whole field, is now only one focus within rhetoric and composition, which has become progressively more intertwined with multiple, parallel, or transdisciplinary studies of discourse. (Composition Studies. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information Age, ed. by Theresa Enos. Taylor Francis, 1996) Background of Composition-Rhetoric ​As a body of information, written rhetoric was brought into being between 1800 and 1910.Since, therefore, the methods and theories associated with teaching writing in America after 1800 are neither changeless, nor unified, nor seriously current in todays scholarly field, nor strongly related to traditional rhetoric, I propose in this book to eschew the term current-traditional rhetoric and to refer instead to older and newer forms of composition-rhetoric. History enthusiasts will recognize that I have appropriated the term from the title of a forward-looking but not very successful textbook produced in 1897 by Fred Newton Scott and Joseph V. Denney. Like Scott and Denney, I use the term to identify specifically that form of rhetorical theory and practice devoted to written discourse. Writing, of course, had always been a small but necessary part of the older rhetorical tradition, but composition-rhetoric after 1800 was the first rhetoric to place writing centrally in rhetoric al work. (Robert J. Connors, Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997) The Development of Composition-Rhetoric Studies: 1945-2000 Sometime between [the end of World War II] and 1990, a host of graduate programs, scholarly journals, and professional organizations dedicated to composition-rhetoric studies emerged in North American higher education. Despite the continued complaints raised against it, the freshman course itself persisted and grew during this period; but now undergirding it was a bona fide academic discipline, increasingly autonomous from other fields and capable of not only supervising, growing, and questioning that course but of sponsoring full and independent curricula at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, rich and seemingly limitless research projects, and dedicated academic careers of every rank and tenure. By the end of this period, comp-rhet boasted book series, endowed chairs, grant programs, research centers, and radically enhanced intellectual and professional self-confidence. . . .[B]y the early 1990s, there were more than 1,200 comp-rhet doctoral students in the United States, s tudying in seventy-two different graduate programs, together granting more than a hundred PhDs a year (Connors, Composition History 418). . . .By the end of the twentieth century, in other words, using the doctorate as the key marker of academic status, a discipline had been born. (David Fleming, Rhetoric Revival or Process Revolution? Renewing Rhetorics Relation to Composition: Essays in Honor of Theresa Jarnagin Enos, ed. by Shane Borrowman, Stuart C. Brown, and Thomas P. Miller. Routledge, 2009) [A]ll areas of the humanities except one have undergone drastic reductions. That one field is composition-rhetoric studies, which . . . continues to flourish among the second series of downsizings, the 1990s version. Why is composition-rhetoric exempt? One of the various answers is that we have enacted the New Paradigm for our 30 years of growth as a discipline. In short, the public, which as a whole understands but cannot articulate that language study is vitally important, supports massive support of the teaching of writing and the research that accompanies and drives it. . . .Although we are immersed in university cultures that regard research as the peak, teaching as the valley, and service as the underground (so that it is invisible), composition-rhetoric scholar-teachers embrace pedagogy, work hard at it, share current research with students, and generally possess an identity (or what Diotima or Aspasia might call an ethos) in which pedagogy is definitive. (Kathleen E. Welch, T echnology/Writing/Identity in Composition and Rhetoric Studies: Working in the Indicative Mood. Living Rhetoric and Composition: Stories of the Discipline, ed. by Duane H. Roen, Stuart C. Brown, and Theresa Enos. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999)

Responses Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 2

Responses - Essay Example Especially, I liked the line in these debates, initiated by Prof. Meilaender. The participants have been discussing the contrasts between scientist Aylmer and his "earthly" assistant Aminadab, and the conclusion was: even "animal nature" has better intuition and can understand danger and worthlessness of human involving into "God's business". Besides, I totally agree with the experts, that Aylmer's perfectionism in the story is extremely aggressive, and his attempt to remove the birthmark is a very repulsive act. It is really unbelievable, how can a birthmark of his loving and caring young wife, who is loyal and devoted to her husband, become such an annoying element There are thousands of people among us, who live with much more ugly defects of skin or body, but it does not change attitude and care of their loving relatives and true friends. Only I do not quite share the position of Prof. Mary Ann Glendon and some other experts, who hesitated in Aylmer's being "a man of science". They called him "magician" or "narcissist". I suppose, he was a good and very experienced scientist and alchemist, because there were few opportunities for studying "real science" in those times. To my mind, Aylmer got into a psychological trap and started hating his wife for her birthmark not because only of his scientific aspirations for perfection, but becau