Funny Short Story :: essays research papers

The Scourge Of The Galaxy   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The pretty researcher walked up to the shack where he supposedly lived. Wendy had heard many stories about the scourge, but she had never seen him for herself. He was a local legend, and she had decided to do her thesis on this obese male. She knocked on the cheap wood door of the shanty, and the door fell off. Wendy anxiously tried to pick the door up, but before she could pick it up, a high-pitched bark came from the dark corridor of the hut. â€Å"It’s alright, girlie. Just leave it and come inside.† She complied quickly, stepping inside. The stench was almost unbearable, a mixture of rancid sweat, rotten food and flatulence. She tried to hold back a small moan, but failed utterly, as she stepped cautiously across the floor strewn with garbage. The scourge was reclined in a La-Z-Boy, his face cloaked in shadow. He spoke again, and the girlish voice was a shock. â€Å"Have a seat, beautiful. I suppose you’re that girl from the brothel that I called for three months ago. I’d almost given up on you, baby.† Wendy quickly decided not to contradict the huge man. She figured that it’d be more interesting for her paper, if she let him think she was a prostitute. She could always run out, she reasoned. She nodded quickly, and he shifted in his recliner, sending vibrations resounding around the hovel. â€Å"Sweet thing, come closer so Herbie can see you, honey.† Wendy gulped uncomfortably and moved closer to the scourge, which was a bad idea. It was sickening, being this close. The scourge was wearing just a red sequined thong, which was protruding dangerously tight in the front, threatening to split at any moment. He had exactly four long greasy hairs on the top of his bald head, and hair grew in oddly shaped patches on his legs and chest. His nipples were pierced with safety pins, and rolls of fat hung off his body. He weighed three hundred pounds. He had a long sparsely haired goatee in the Fu Manchu style. Bits of moldy food were hanging at various places on the goatee. His eyes were beady and calculating. He had thin wet lips, which he licked constantly. He also wore a pair of shocking pink and dirty brown argyle socks pulled up to his calves. His nose was more of a pig snout than a nose, and he had exactly seven brown, crooked teeth in his mouth.

A historical overview of the African-American race Essay

Frankly, most persons today have learned African history through European eyes. To the European, Africa was the place where the trader, missionary, explorer and conqueror made names for themselves. Europeans often considered Africa backward and called it the â€Å"Dark Continent. † But do the Africans consider that they were really as backward as the Europeans imply? One answer is produced by Nwabueze Chukwemeka Okoye of New York’s State University College, Department of African and Afro-American Studies. Of European expansion into Africa, he says: â€Å"The effort was clearly to justify European dominance of the Africans not in terms of sheer force (which it was) but in terms of a cultural superiority (which it was not). † Particularly, African-Americans are believed to derive their background from the Sub-Saharan race of slaves that have been shipped from the African regions towards the Northern American areas during the years of slavery. Some of them also shared both European and Asian blood and heritage that they carried the said mixture of both particular cultures as they were transferred to America. Because they were already branded as â€Å"slaves† the African-American community simply used to accept whatever it is that is said to them as noted by the â€Å"white race†. They were most of the time treated like as if they were of no worth and that their life is no more better than that of the animals that they used to take care if. Sadly though, although the years of slavery have finally ended, the brand that goes with the African-American race has not been removed yet. Many people still tend to treat them as low-raced people who ought to receive harsh treatments from the society. However, there is always a time for breaking the silence. The undoubtedly strong perseverance of the people of the African race in seeing what is being done to their race have been finally ended when there were people like Sojourner Truth and other abolitionists who were courageous enough to face their â€Å"masters† [the white Americans] and break the ties of slavery that entangles them with the dreadful situation of living that they were experiencing before. The hopeful African-American race then perceived that at least they would have the freedom that their so-called â€Å"heroes† worked their efforts for. However, in the long run, it could be noted that this particular freedom has not been given completely by the American government towards the African-American race yet. Seeing the situations within the American society, it could be observed that the African-American race still continues to experience racial division within the said society.

The Exchange of Dirty Hypodermic Needles

The Exchange Of Dirty Hypodermic Needles For Clean Ones, Or The Sale Of Clean Ones. Is it the exchange of dirty hypodermic needles for clean ones, or the sale of clean ones necessary for our society? The exchange of dirty hypodermic needles for clean, or the sale of clean ones is very necessary and important because our society is in need of solutions on how to prevent and decrease the big amount of infections and death that these type of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis c are causing.A lot of people do not protect themselves as they should because of lack of information. Many people think that HIV and many other diseases are spread only through sexual contact and not through needles that have been used and infected with these diseases appearing by others. I totally agree that the exchange between dirty hypodermic needles for clean ones, or sales of clean ones is going to provoke a huge positive impact in people’s life and health because they will be more aware of the damage that such negligence would cause if they are not well informed.First, the exchange of dirty hypodermic needles for clean one, or the sale of clean ones it’s important because our society needs more solutions on how to prevent infections and diseases. Often we try to find and fix these types of problems before even looking where they coming from in order to create solutions for it. According by The Lindesmith Center, New York City by 1994, 125,000 people had developed AIDS as a result of injecting drugs with unsterile syringes and over a third of new AIDS cases stem from injection drug use.There are many ways people can stop this big increment or at least prevent them. The best way you can prevent such infections or diseases is to stop injecting drugs or never start using them, go to programs where they can help you with these types of things such as substance abuse. If you continue to inject drugs, always use new, sterile syringes and never use more than once or share syring es, needles, water or other drug preparation materials.Do not share toothbrushes, razors and other items that may be contaminated with blood. Tattooing or body piercing may also increase the risk of infection and always, always practice safe sex. Second, the exchange of dirty hypodermic needles for clean one, or the sale of clean ones program is need to create more knowledge to those people who still ignore the big consequences that the exchange of needle can cause to their life and health. We, as part of this society, must show greater interest in our health.According to the Massachusetts statewide harm reduction coalition, this program of exchanging used dirty needles for new ones is a big step and it promises to provide these syringes through different courses and manuals explaining how and why it is best to do this instead of keep using the same needles that others might have used since these can cause infections and diseases to many more people. Also, it offered information and counseling about these diseases as how we can avoid them and prevent them, as also about drugs and sex among others.However, many people are still against these types of programs because they think that instead of helping our society to reduce the large number of infected people caused by the mishandling of dirty needles injections with these programs, it will make them increase; According to them people will consume more and will became more addicted because of it. I do not agree with this kind of assertion because it is a complete lie that because of information and the exchange of a needle people will consume more, at least there is still nothing that can prove it.In the other hand, there are many articles and studies that prove as the use of needle exchanges increases, the use of shared needles decreases according to the Lindesmith Center, New York City. In conclusion, I think the exchange of dirty hypothermic needle to clean ones, or the sale of clean ones is very important fo r us and our society because along with this, people will be more safe and well inform since the lack of information that some of us have according to these type of situations.Many people get infected because of their negligence for example, tattooing with needles that have been used by others or as most cases injecting drugs using the same syringe of another person. In the future, if these type of issues continue without something that can stop it or at least prevent it like the program that a lot of states have â€Å"exchanging a dirty hypodermic needle for a new one† the amount of people infected will be much greater than we think.

Animal Rights and Human Wrongs Essay

Are there limits on how human beings can legitimately treat non-human animals? Or can we treat them just any way we please? If there are limits, what are they? Are they sufficiently strong, as som e peop le supp ose, to lead us to be veg etarians and to se riously curtail, if not eliminate, our use of non-human animals in `scientific’ experiments designed to benefit us? To fully ap preciate this question let me contrast it with two different ones: Are there limits on how we can legitimately treat rocks? And: are there limits on how we can legitima tely treat other human beings? The an swer to th e first ques tion is pre suma bly `No.’ Well, that’s not q uite right. There are som e limits on what w e can le gitimate ly do with or to rocks. If Paula has a pet rock, then Susan can’t justifiably take it away or smash it with a sledge hammer. After all it is Paula’s rock. Or if there is a rock of unusual beauty or special human interest say the Old Man of Hoy or Mt. Rushmore it would be inappropriate , and pro bably im mora l, for me to te ar it down , to deface it, or to chisel o ut a sectio n to use in my ca tapult. These limits though, arise not from any direct concern for the rocks; rather, they are imposed because of the interests a nd rights of other h uman s. Susan can’t take Paula’s rock for the same reason she can’t take Paula’s eraser: it is Paula’s and Paula has a right to those things which are hers. And no one ca n destro y or defa ce items of specia l natural b eauty because by doing so one is indirectly harming the interests of other humans in them. So there are limits on what we can legitimately do to inanim ate objects, but whatever limits there are arise from some human concern.1 Not so for our treatment of other humans. We suppose that it is inappropriate to tr eat a human being just any way we wish. I cannot steal another human; that would be kidnapping. Nor can I sm ash so meon e with a sledgehammer; that would be, depending on the outcome, assault, attempted m urder, or murder. And the reason I cannot do these things has nothing to do with what third parties d o or don ‘t want. It has to do with the interest and desires of that particular person. It is wrong for Susan to hit Paula , not beca use oth er peo ple like Paula or because other people would be offended, but because Paula is a person. Period. Thus, there is a fundamental contrast between those objects which we can treat as we please (excep t when limited by the interests of other humans) and those which we canno t. Ordinary rocks fall into the first camp; humans, into the later. Now, what about nonhuman animals? Do they fall into the first or the se cond c amp? Or som ewhe re in between? There are reasons to believe that many animals and certainly the higher-order anima ls are more like humans than they are like rocks. Thus, we have reason to believe there are constraints on how we can legitimately treat them, regardless of our particular wishes and desires. Or so I shall argue. For the moment I will simply note that these are beliefs which most of us already have. That is, most of us presume that it is illegitimate to treat animals just anyway we wish. For exam ple, mo st of us be lieve it is wrong to wanto nly kill or torture a higher o rder m amm al. Suppose we discover that some member of our commun ity, say Jones, has a habit of picking up stray dog s or cats a nd dec apitating them w ith his hom e-ma de guillo tine’; 2 or we learn he has invented a machine which draws and quarters them. He uses these machines because he revels in th e anim als’ pain, b ecaus e he relis hes in the sight of blood; or maybe he is a scientist who w ants to stu dy their re action to stress. In this case we rightly surmise that Jones is immoral. We wouldn’t want him to be our pre sident, our fr iend, our next door neighbor, or our son-in-law. In short, we all seem to agree that they a re limits on how we can properly treat nonhuman animals, and that these limits arise becau se of the n ature of th e anim als, not m erely because of the de sires of oth er hum ans to see an imals trea ted we ll. That is, such acts are wrong not merely because other humans are bothered by them. We would think them equa lly wrong if they were secretly done so that no one else in the community knew about them. We think they are wrong because of what it does to the animal. On the other hand, we are also part of a culture which rather cavalier ly uses a nimals for food, for clothes, for research in the development of new drugs, and to determine the safety of household products. And many of these u ses req uire inflicting a great d eal of pa in on animals. Record of such uses is readily available in various academic journals, and chronicled by num erous writers on the topic’. 3 But for the reader who might be unfamiliar with them, let me briefly describe two ways in which we use animals ways which inflict substantial pain on them. Anima ls who are raised for food are obviously raised with the express purpose of making a profit for the farmer. Nothing surprising. But the implications of this are direct and obvious and deleterious to the an imals. There are two ways for a farmer to increase her profit. One is to get higher prices for her goods, the other is to spend less producing those goods. Since there is a limit on how much people will pay for meat, there is substantial financia l pressu re to dec rease th e expe nse of p roducin g the m eat. This under standa bly leads to over-crowding; after all the more animals a farmer can get into a smaller space, the less it costs to produce the meat. There are similar pressures to restrict the animals’ movement. The less the animals move, the less they eat, thus decreasing the farmer’s expense. For instance, farmers who raise chickens are inclined to put them in small `battery’ cages. They are commonly kept `eight to ten to a space smaller than a newspaper page. Unable to walk around or even stretch their wings much less build a nest the birds be come vicious a nd attac k one a nother ‘.4 The average person seems equally unfamiliar with the extensive use of animals in laboratory experim ents. Ma ny of thes e are of o nly mo derate significan ce’; 5 most of the them involve extensive pain on animals. For instance, N.J. Carlson gave hig h voltag e electric shocks to sixteen d ogs an d found that the `h igh-sho ck grou p’ acqu ired `an xiety’ faster. Or researchers in Texas constructed a pneumatically driven piston to pound an anvil into the skulls of thirteen monkeys. When it didn’t immediately produce concussions, the researchers increased the strength of the piston until it produced `cardiac damage, hemorrhages and brain dama ge’. 6 Or researchers at Harvard placed baby mice and ba by rats into cages with starving adult male rats. The adults ate them. The researchers’ conclusion: hunger is an important drive in animals. (That, of course, is some thing we are sho cked to learn; we would have never kno wn this fact otherwise). T HE O PTIONS Now, how d o we sq uare o ur abso lute revu lsion at ou r hypoth etical Jones with his animal guillotine, and our rather blithe acceptance of the treatment of animals on the farm and in the scientific and co mme rcial labo ratories? It is not imm ediately clear tha t we can . What is clear, it seems, it that we have three options, three alternative beliefs about our treatment of anim als. Thes e are: 1) If we are repulsed by Jones treatment of stray animals, we are simply being inappr opriately or unduly squeamish or sympathetic. We should have no aversion to killing, torturin g, or usin g anim als in any way w e pleas e, unles s, of course, that anima l is some one els e’s prop erty, that is, he r pet. 2) There are reasons why we should treat non-human animals better than we treat rocks; nonetheless, there are also reasons why we can use non-huma n anim als in ways we could never legitimately use humans. 3) We should be treating non-human animals more like we currently treat humans. Many of our accepted ways of using animals are, in fact, morally objectionable. The first position, it seems, is completely untenable. No sensible person , I think, is willing to adop t a position which s ays that to rturing a nimals for fun is completely acceptable; no one is willing to say that Jones is a fit mem ber of so ciety. This b elief, it seem s, is virtually unshakable. Most of you understood perfectly well what I meant when I describe d Jone s’s behavior as `torture.’ But this claim would be nonsense if we thought there were no moral limits on how we could treat animals.7 So we are left with the la tter option s. And, of course, which one we choose, will have a dramatic impact on the lives of humans and of other animals. One necessary clarification: to say that animals should be treated more like humans is not to say that they should be treated exactly like humans. For instance, we need not consider giving animals the right to vote, the right to free religious expression, or the right of free speech. As far as I can ascertain, most an imals do n’t have the necessary capabilities to exercise these rights. However, the same is true of very young children and of se verely retarded adults. That is why they don’t have these rights either: the y lack the requisite capacities. Nonetheless, the mere fact that some adult humans are not given the right to vote does n ot mea n it is legitimate to have them for lunch or to test bleach in their eyes. So why assume it is so for animals? W HY ANIMALS SHOULDN’T SUFFER NEED LESS PAIN Until now I have been trying to identify our own deeply held convictions about restriction s on the prope r treatme nt of anim als. Now it is high time to try to offer a positive defense of our ordinary understa nding; a defense which will have even more radical implications that we might have supposed. That is, I want to argue for option three above; I want to a rgue tha t there are rather strin gent lim its on wh at it is morally permis sible to do to anima ls. More s pecifically , I wish to argue that we should all b ecom e vege tarians a nd that w e shou ld dram atically curtail, if not eliminate, our use of laboratory animals. Though there are numerous arguments which can be offered in this rega rd, I want to defend one particular claim: that we should not inflict need less pain on anim als. Before I go on I should make it clear what I mean by `needless pain.’ The point can be made most clear by use of an analogy. Contrast the following cases: 1) I prick my daughter’s arm with a needle for no apparent reason (though we needn’t assume I derive any sadistic pleasure from it). 2) I am a physician and I inoculate her against typhoid. What differentiates these cases? In both I prick her arm; in both (let us presume) I inflict similar amounts of pain. Yet we consider the latter not only ju stifiable, bu t possibly obligato ry; the former we consider sadistic. Why? Because it inflicts unne cessar y pain. M y daug hter doe s not in any way bene fit from it. Thus, unnecessary pain is that which is inflicted on a sentient (feeling) creature when it is not for the good of that particular creature. The latter is necessary pain; it is pain which the creature suffers for her own good. There are two main premises in my argument. The first is the factual claim that anima ls do, in fact, feel pa in. The second is the claim that the potential of animal suffering severe ly limits what we can justifiably do to them, it constrains the way we can legitima tely use them. That an imals fee l pain That anima ls do feel p ain see ms rela tively unc ontrove rsial. It is a belief we all share. As I noted earlier we couldn’t even make sense of `torturing’ an animal if we assumed it was incapa ble of feeling pain. Nor could we understand being repulsed at Jones’s use of stray anima ls unless we thought the animals suffered at Jones’s hands. If Jones collected abandoned tin cans and cut them to pieces w ith his guillo tine, we m ig ht think J ones te rribly odd, bu t not imm oral. But more can be said. We have more than adequate behavioral evidence that anima ls feel pain and that they can suffer. Most of us have seen a dog which has been struck by a car, though not killed instantaneously. The dog convulses, bleed, and yelps. Less drastically, most of us have, at some time or another, stepped on a cat’s tail or a dog’s paw and ha ve witne ssed the anima l’s reaction . The reaction, unsurprisingly, is like our own reaction in similar cases. If someone steps on my hand, I w ill likely yell and attempt to move my hand. But we ne edn’t res t the case on beh avioral e videnc e thoug h it does seem to m e to be more than sufficient. We should also note that we share important anatomical structures with higher o rder an imals. A human being’s central nervous center is remarkably similar to that of a chimpanzee, dog, pig, and even a rat. That is not to say the brains are exactly alike; they aren’t. The cerebral cortex in human beings is more highly de velope d than in most mamm als (though not noticeably so wh en compare d with a dolphin or a Great Ap e); but the cortex is the location of our `higher brain fun ctions,’ for e xamp le, the sea t of thoug ht, speech, etc. However, the areas of the brain which neurophysiologist identity as the `pain centers’ are virtua lly identica l betwee n hum an and non-h uman anima ls. Accord ing to evolutionary biology this is exactly w hat we should expec t. The pa in centers worke d well in enhancing the survival of lower species, so they were altered only slightly in succeeding evolutionary stages. H igher br ain func tions, how ever, are condu cive to survival, and thus, have led to more dramatic advances in cerebral development. Given all this, it seems undeniable that many animals do feel pain. That they feel pain is morally relevant ‘So what?†™ someone might ask. ` Even if animals do feel p ain, why should that limit or at least se riously restrict our treatment of them? Why can’t we still use them for our purposes, whatever those purposes happen to be?’ Let’s turn the question around for a moment and ask why we think we should be able to use them for our purposes, given that they are capable of suffering? After all, we are staunc hly opposed to inflicting unnecessary pain on human beings. If animals can also feel pain, why shouldn’t we have the same reluctance to inflicting needless pain on them? A crucial tenet of ethics is that we should treat like cases alike. Th at is, we sh ould treat two cases the same unless there is some general and relevant reason which justifies the difference in treatment. Thus, two students who perform equally well in the same class should get the same grade; two who perform rather differently should receive different grades. By the same token, if two creatures feel pain and it is improp er to inflict needless pain on one of them , it would likewise be improper to inflict needless pain on the othe r. But the argumen t has pro gresse d too qu ickly. This a rgum ent wo rks only if the reason it is wrong to inflict need less pain on the one creature is that it feels pain. If there is some other reason so me rea son wh ich could differentia te hum an from non-h uman anim als then we would not be able to infer that it is illegitim ate to inflict needless pain on animals. Hence, if someone wishes to show that it is not wrong to inflict needless pain on animals, then she must identify some relevant difference between human and non-huma n animals, some differenc e which justifies this d ifference in treatm ent. And, of course , this is just wh at mos t defend ers of ou r presen t treatme nt of anim als are inclined to do. Tho ugh pe ople on ce rega rded a nimals as non-sentient creatures as mere automata that is no longer so.

Profnessional paper (exdended nursing roles) Term

Profnessional (exdended nursing roles) - Term Paper Example The curative health care costs are currently increasing thus the need of preventive health care and health care insurance for the minority groups (Chernecky & Murphy-Ende, 2009). Approximately, health care costs account for about 14 percent of US Gross domestic product through federal and state spending on Medicare, TRICARE, Medicaid and other health care programs. The rise of new medial technologies like imaging tests and new diseases will require nurses to have advanced degrees in the future. The aging citizens consist of 15 % of total US population and the figure is projected to reach 21 percent in the next two decades. Another changing trend in healthcare is the increase in the use of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) that will require all nurses to learn how to use the systems and also offer telemedicine services since many patients carry out self-assessments daily (Chernecky & Murphy-Ende, 2009). The current trends in health care require a visionary role in order to match the fu ture health care needs. My visionary role will require me to empower the relationships with patients and take an innovative approach in delivering health services to the population. I have a deep sense that in the future patients will need enhanced confidentiality and privacy protection of their health care information due to emergency of new disease trends (Chernecky & Murphy-Ende, 2009). I aspire to work with physicians and hospital administrators in delivering the health care services to Hispanic women suffering from breast cancer. I will work with physicians and hospital administrators, clinical counselors, surgeons, dieticians, chemotherapists, oncologists, and radiologists in delivering the healthcare. Other professionals will include medical geneticist who will predict the chances of a patient suffering from breast cancer and breast surgeons who will remove cancer tumors (Chernecky & Murphy-Ende, 2009). My new role will enable me create awareness on the need of taking early t ests and preventing the chances of suffering from breast cancer in Hispanic women. Hispanic women are vulnerable to breast cancer due to lack of awareness and their lifestyles. I will coordinate the breast cancer awareness efforts and offer by advocating for the patients’ interests and ensuring that all patients receive holistic care while in the hospital. I will provide feedback and train colleagues in delivering the heath care. I will ensure all Hispanic women suffering from cancer in the hospital receive enough fluids, and take the vital signs and symptoms of the patients. I will display sound judgment and ethical considerations in ensuring all patients follow their medical schedules (Chernecky & Murphy-Ende, 2009). In order to effectively deliver healthcare services to the vulnerable population, I need advanced nursing education and work experience for the clinical preparation. I need a graduate degree in nursing in order to provide direct care to patients in a hospital e nvironment. Some of the issues I need to be aware of include CNS practicum, diagnostic reasoning, evidence-based practice, health care ethical policies, and patient stabilization and breast cancer assessments. I will complete the Master of Nursing degree program in clinical nursing specialty within four years and obtain the minimum working hours requirement before receiving the certification. I

Literature and Laboratory Skills Thesis Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Literature and Laboratory Skills - Thesis Example This paper looks at the process of developing a bioreactor and subsequently using it to grow cyanobacterial species that release cylindrospermopsins. It then investigates the isolation and detection of the innate compounds present in cylindrospermopsin in significant quantities through chromatographic (HPLC) and immunologic assays (ELISA). This research hopes to mitigate the negative effect of cylindrospermopsin through a thorough understanding of its growth. The study will test the first hypothesis by analyzing fresh water samples from various water bodies around various countries and making a comparison. This will either support or refute this hypothesis. The second hypothesis is tested by investigating the biological activity of cylindrospermopsins in living organisms, paying keen interest to the toxicity levels and the impact of cylindrospermopsins on metabolic pathways. Significant biological activity or impact on metabolic pathways will support this hypothesis. The therapeutic activity of modified CYL is investigated in the third hypothesis. Cylindrospermopsin alkaloids are three water-soluble toxins consisting of cylindrospermopsin (CYN) (1), 7-deoxy-cylindrospermopsin (7-deoxy-CYN) (2), and 7-epi-cylindrospermopsin (7-epi-CYN) (3). They are metabolic products of a range of cyanobacterial species. The unique structural feature of these alkaloids consists of a uracil ring covalently linked to a sulfonated tricyclic guanidine. These natural metabolites are reported to contain toxicological properties. Therefore, there is the need to detect their presence in water and subsequently remove them. Cylindrospermopsin was first extracted in 1992 from the cyanobacterium Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii and characterised using a combination of NMR and mass spectroscopy. 7-deoxy-cylindrospermopsin was later discovered and characterised in 1999 by HPLC

The definition of a word that means something to you Essay

The definition of a word that means something to you - Essay Example Globalization is a common term used in describing things taking place as a result of current technological advancement especially things that have enhanced integration of different countries. Many intellectual imaginations have been gripped by the concept of globalization and most people commonly pursue a perception that globalization is an analytical prerequisite used in appreciating continuousness and adjustment of contemporary society. Globalization has gained popularity in different fields including political and academic spectrum because of its relevance to the growing trend, which has heightened the current propagation of the global discussion. This further signifies the impact of the contemporary social relation and the fact that there is a common and new character shared within the society because of the relevancy and the context of the term to the society. Many fields have incorporated the word globalization in their studies and event tried to relate numerous phenomenon with it. There are many different concepts and meanings of globalization as per different scholars, laymen and in political spectrum that sound almost similar. Some people define globalization as westernization implying a concept of transformation of the social structure of modernity to all humanity while extinguishing preexistent culture as well as self-rule. It is presumed that globalization is colonization and Americanization thus positioning it as a hegemonic discourse by some critics that it is just a philosophy of hypothetical advancement concealing far reaching. Proponents of globalizations westernization argue that globalization has led to transformations such as rationalist knowledge, capitalist production, as well as technological advancements as modernity while early global consciousness prompted the onset of modernity. Indeed, contemporary globalization has played an integral role in the modern and western social relations in