Views on the British Empire essays

Views on the British Empire essays There are several attitudes towards the empire expressed in the music and visual material provided. The key attitude of the British toward the Empire is patriotism, which naturally is followed by pride, then in turn developed in self-righteousness and ego. The strong sense of patriotism grew when the British power provided peace and wealth.  ¡Ã‚ §Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land ¡s swift increase; ¡ as Henry H. Bennett wrote in The Flag Goes By. Citizens were brought up in an environment that taught them to love Britain. The  ¡Ã‚ §Empire-day Catechism ¡ of League of the Empire, informed the duties of a British citizen:  ¡Ã‚ §To be the loyal friend of all fellow subjects of the King-Emperor ¡K To prepare himself by every means in his power to advance the welfare of his fellow citizens, whether in peach or war... ¡ These words were like blueprints for a patriotic British heart. The patriotism fostered hasn ¡t perished yet; there is still an an nual concert in London performing patriotic music. The words of Pomp and Circumstance March in D Major, by Edward Elgar echoed in the great hall  ¡Ã‚ §Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of Free, ¡ the audience sang with loyalty,  ¡Ã‚ §How shall we extol thee, who are born of Thee! ¡ Although patriotism was the incipient reaction of the citizens, there is no doubt that this feeling produced ego. Arrogance was inevitable; The Empire ¡s size alone had the charisma to attract pride! The Catechism said the extent of the Empire was twelve million square miles; it took up one-fifth of the earth ¡s surface. There ¡re a total of 400 million subjects of King Edward, which is also about one-fifth of the world... ¡ All the contemporary pieces reflected grand pomposity of the empire. They were loud and thick in texture with roaring melody lines. Brass and percussion instruments were popularly used to represent the glory of the empire. Poetry-wise, The Flag Goes By cleverly expressed the people ¡...

What Is Globalization Research Proposal Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

What Is Globalization - Research Proposal Example    Another word for globalization is an exchange. For the most part, the recent form and development of the world can be attributed to globalization because the technological advancement has happened as a result of the very exchange of resources and services among countries. While there are several features of globalization related to different aspects including economic, social, and political, yet â€Å"where it has had a most telling impact is in major and dramatic increases in global trade and exchanges in an open, integrated and borderless international environment† (Pere). Globalization has particularly increased as a result of the advent of the Internet. The Internet has allowed people to socialize with one another, make friends, and exchange ideas and opinions without being limited by the geographic boundaries. Globalization has played a very important role in the exchange of talent across the nations. These days, the Internet is used to recruit talented people from all over the world. â€Å"Globalization has changed us into a company that searches the world, not just to sell or to the source, but to find intellectual capital - the worlds best talents and greatest ideas† (Welch cited in Kulkarni). Employers use social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn to learn more about the candidates they are considering hiring. Positive effects of globalization include increased knowledge of world cultures; increased understanding of the norms and values, trends and traditions of different people; economic strengthening and development of the underdeveloped countries.

Mythology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Mythology - Essay Example The Mayans associated creation with magic and divination, and regarded their gods and heroes as divine (â€Å"Mayan Mythology†). In addition, they believed that the present world was a recent creation, but would eventually be destroyed as it is on doomsday. The Mayans also believed in a universe that comprised of heavens and underworlds and the human world sandwiched between them (PaganSpace.net). In relation to the above, there are numerous descendants of the Mayan culture in the modern society mainly of the Hispanic descent. As such, I would expect the individuals to be highly superstitious and dedicated to their course. This is owing to the traditions held by their ancestors and culture that has been taught to them. However, with the expiry of the Mayan calendar it is expected that the culture will suffer a setback as their prediction of doomsday failed to pass. To the same effect, many may opt for alternative beliefs and cultures in an effort to substitute for their

Thalia, Muse Of Comedy Essay Example for Free

Thalia, Muse Of Comedy Essay Venue is defined simply as the appropriate place of trial. In criminal cases, fairness and convenience to the defendants are the underlying policy in determining venue. It has been often ruled that the basic requirement of placing venue in the district wherein the crime has been committed must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it. However, courts must consider such factors as convenience of and fairness to the defendants and witnesses and the prompt administration of justice in setting venue and considering motions for the change of venue. Questions of venue in criminal cases are not merely matters of formal legal procedure. They raise deep issues of public policy in the light of which legislation must be construed (United States v. Johnson cited in VENUE- Cases). In order to comply with this public policy, courts will allow a change of venue if injustice will result and prejudice so great will exist against the defendant or if the procurement of witnesses will be difficult if no change of venue will be made. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows a change of venue upon three instances, to wit: upon the judges own motion, upon motion of the state prosecution, and upon the defendants own motion (Chapter 31). On the other hand, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows change of venue for trial only upon defendants own motion (Rule 21). Curiously, the Federal Rules only allow change of venue for prejudice and for convenience on the part of the defendant alone, and only upon his own motion. On the other hand, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows change of venue not only for the convenience and to avoid prejudice against the defendant but also to afford a fair and impartial trial to the State and upon the motion of the judge or of the state prosecution. The inevitable conclusion is that the Federal Rules seek to afford a fair and impartial trial in favor of the accused alone in interpreting the public policy behind the determination of venue in criminal trials, while the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to afford a fair and impartial trial in favor of both the State and the accused in determining the venue in criminal cases. References Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Retrieved from the world wide web on Nov. 22, 2007. http://www. law. cornell. edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule21. html. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Retrieved from the world wide web on Nov. 22, 2007. http://tlo2. tlc. state. tx. us/cgi-bin/cqcgi. Zalman, Marvin. Venue-Cases. Retrieved from the world wide web Nov. 22, 2007. http://law. jrank. org/pages/2247/Venue. html.

Joyces A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man :: Free Essay Writer

Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is considered to be one of the finest works of literature of all time. Herbert Gorman, an author from the early twentieth century, stated that "so profound and beautiful and convincing a book is part of the lasting literature of our age," and with good reason. The main character of the novel, Stephen Dedalus, is a complex and dynamic youth, and one who undergoes vast changes during the course of his life. The main influences on him are family and religion. As his life passes, Stephens' feelings towards these influences change drastically. Stephen's family is very important to him. His father, Simon, plays a major role in his early life, and Stephen has great respect for him. However, there are instances when Stephen is angered by his fathers' actions, and resents his statements. The growing debts incurred by Simon lead to his son's transferring to a day school. Stephens' difficulties at his former educational institution are relayed by his father, much to the chagrin of the younger Dedalus. Later in the novel, Stephen loses even more respect for his father as the familys' debts continue to grow and they are forced to move. Once, when the two males travel to sell of the family estate, Simon returns to his former school and converses with his former classmates. Stephen is upset to hear of his father's wild behavior as a youth, and of his flirtatious nature. He begins to rebel against his strict upbringing, striking back at his familys' traditional values and way of life. Religion is an ever present force in Stephen's life. He attends a religious school from an early age, and is a devout Roman Catholic. He has great reference for the priests at his school, and even fears the rector. As his life progresses, Stephen experiences great feelings for women, and finally gives into his desire when he encounters a prostitute in Dublin. From this point forward, he views his life as an immoral one and makes many attempts to correct it. He goes so far as to deprive all of his senses from any form of pleasure. While attending a religious retreat, Stephen takes all that he hears to heart. He believes that if he does not correct his ways, he will be banished to an eternity in Hell. Deciding that he must confess his immoral act, Stephen goes to a small parish where he is not known. He begins to overcompensate for his sins, but to no avail.

Comparison between Hitler and Stalin Essay

The complexity of Stalin’s character and his role becomes most apparent when a comparison is attempted between him and Hitler. Their similarities are numerous and striking. Each of them suppressed opposition without mercy or scruple. Each built up the machine of a totalitarian state and subjected his people to its constant, relentless pressure. Each tried to remould the mind of his nation to a single pattern from which any ‘undesirable’ impulse or influence was excluded. Each established himself as an unchallengeable master ruling his country in accordance with a rigid ‘Fuhrerprinzip’. Here the similarities cease and the differences begin. Not in a single field has Hitler made the German nation advance beyond the point it had reached before he took power. In most fields he has thrown it back far behind; terribly far behind. The Germany he took over in 1933 was, despite economic depression and social strains and stresses, a wealthy and flourishing country. Its industry was the most efficient on the continent. Its social services were the most modern that any European nation had had. Its universities were great centres of learning, priding themselves on famous men of science. The better part of the German youth was serious, alert and idealistic. The German theatre was the object of the highest admiration and of imitation. The best German newspapers were the most intelligent and the best informed of the continental press. The Germany that Hitler left behind was impoverished and reduced to savagery. We are not speaking about the effects of Germany’s defeat, but about the state of the nation, regardless of defeat. The material apparatus of production which the country possessed under Hitler was, apart from special armament plants, not essentially greater than that which it had possessed before. Its social services were half destroyed. Its universities became drilling grounds-for a generation of horrible brutes. Its famous men of science were compelled either to emigrate or to accept the guidance of SS men and to learn racialist gibberish. Its medical men were turned into specialists on the racial purity of blood and into the assassins of those whose blood was deemed impure. In the sanctuary of national philosophy Alfred Rosenberg sequestrated for himself the niche that used to be occupied by Immanuel Kant. Twelve years of ‘education’ by a nazified press, radio, cinema, and theatre left the collective mind of Germany stultified and ruined. These terrible losses were not redeemed by a single positive acquisition or by a single new idea, unless one chooses to regard as new the idea that one nation or race is entitled to dominate or exterminate the others. Nor was the social structure of the nation essentially changed by national socialism. When the Nazi facade was blown away, the structure that revealed itself to the eyes of the world was the same as it had been before Hitler, with its big industrialists, its Krupps and Thyssens, its Junkers, its–.middle classes, its Grossbauers, its farm labourers, and its industrial workers. Sociologically, although not politically, the Germany of 1945 was still the Germany of the Hohenzollerns, only thrown into terrible disorder and confusion by a tragically purposeless riot. What a contrast, after all, Stalinist Russia presents. The nation over which Stalin took power might, apart from small groups of educated people and advanced workers, rightly be called a nation of savages. This is not meant to cast any reflection on the Russian national character – Russia’s ‘backward, Asiatic’ condition has been her tragedy, not her fault. Stalin undertook, to quote a famous saying, ‘to drive barbarism out of Russia by barbarous means’. Because of the nature of the means he employed, much of the barbarism thrown out of Russian life has crept back into it. The nation has, nevertheless, advanced far in most fields of its existence. Its material apparatus of production, which about 1930 was still inferior to that of any medium-sized European nation, has so greatly and so rapidly expanded that Russia is now the first industrial power in Europe and the second in the world. Within little more than one decade the number of her cities and towns doubled; and her urban population grew by thirty millions. The number of schools of all grades has very impressively multiplied. The whole nation has been sent to school. Its mind has been so awakened that it can hardly be put back to sleep again. Its avidity for knowledge, for the sciences and the arts, has been stimulated by Stalin’s government to the point where it has become insatiable and embarrassing. It should be remarked that, although Stalin has kept Russia isolated from the contemporary influences of the west, he has encouraged and fostered every interest in what he calls the ‘cultural heritage’ of the west. Perhaps in no country have the young been imbued with so great a respect and love for the classical literature and art of other nations as in Russia. This is one of the important differences between the educational methods of nazism and Stalinism. Another is that Stalin has not, like Hitler, forbidden the new generation to read and study the classics of their own literature whose ideological outlook does not accord with his. While tyrannizing the living poets, novelists, historians, painters, and even composers, he has displayed, on the whole, a strange pietism for the dead ones. The works of Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Belinsky, and many others, whose satire and criticism of past tyranny have only too often a bearing on the present, have been literally pressed into the hands of youth in millions of copies. No Russian Lessing or Heine has been burned at an auto-da-fà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½. Nor can the fact be ignored that the ideal inherent in Stalinism, one to which Stalin has given a grossly distorted expression, is not domination of man by man, or nation by nation, or race by race, but their fundamental equality. Even the proletarian dictatorship is presented as a mere transition to a classless society; and it is the community of the free and the equal, and not the dictatorship, that has remained the inspiration. Thus, there have been many positive, valuable elements in the educational influence of Stalinism, elements that are in the long run likely to turn against its worse features. Finally, the whole structure of Russian society has undergone a change so profound and so many-sided that it cannot really be reversed. It is possible to imagine a violent reaction of the Russian people itself against the state of siege in which it has been living so long. It is even possible to imagine something like a political restoration. But it is certain that even such a restoration would touch merely the surface of Russian society and that it would demonstrate its impotence vis-à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½-vis the work done by the revolution even more thoroughly than the Stuart and the Bourbon restorations had done. For of Stalinist Russia it is even truer than of any other revolutionary nation that ‘twenty years have done the work of twenty generations’. For all these reasons Stalin cannot be classed with Hitler, among the tyrants whose record is one of absolute worthlessness and futility. Hitler was the leader of a sterile counter-revolution, while Stalin has been both the leader and the exploiter of a tragic, self-contradictory but creative revolution. Like Cromwell, Robespierre and Napoleon he started as the servant of an insurgent people and made himself its master. Like Cromwell he embodies the continuity of the revolution through all its phases and metamorphoses, although his role was less prominent in the first phase. Like Robespierre he has bled white his own party; and like Napoleon he has built his half-conservative and half-revolutionary empire and carried revolution beyond the frontiers of his country. The better part of Stalin’s work is as certain to outlast Stalin himself as the better parts of the work of Cromwell and Napoleon have outlasted them. But in order to save it for the future and to give to it its full value, history may yet have to cleanse and reshape Stalin’s work as sternly as it once cleansed and reshaped the work of the English revolution after Cromwell and of the French after Napoleon. From Stalin, A Political Biography, I. Deutscher, Oxford University Press, 1949.,

Should Obese People Have Higher Premiums

Guoyi Chen Should Obese People Have Higher Premiums The Obesity epidemic affects millions people of the United States every day. According to the National Institutes of Health, â€Å"obesity† refers to any individual with a BMI of more than 30 and BMI is simply a calculation that assesses weight relative to height (NIH). In the past decades, the number of obese Americans has increased dramatically. Based on the data from Nation Health and Examination Survey, about one-third of U. S. adults (33. %) are obese and approximately 17% (or 12. 5 million) of children and adolescents aged 2-19 years are obese (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). It is well documented that people who are obese are more likely to have so-called â€Å"obese-related† health problems such as Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the government has spent about 122 billion dollars annually to cure people who have obese related health issues and this number is still increasing.Because obesity costs so much annually, some people suggest that people who are obese should pay higher insurance rates because they place a heavy burden on the government and use more health care resources than non-obese people. On the other hand, others hold the opinion that it is unfair for people who are obese and it is kind of discrimination if they need to pay higher insurance rates than non-obese people. The important question that worth to notice here is that what causes obesity?Some people suggest that obesity is more about â€Å"nature†. It has something to do with genes because obese people would transfer their â€Å"obese gene† to their offspring. Other people believe that it more about â€Å"nurture† because an unhealthy life style could leads to obesity. However, according to NIH, â€Å"obesity is mainly caused by consuming more calories than the body needs – most commonly by eating a diet high in fat and calories, living a sedentary lifestyle, or both. † (NIH).That being said, most people who are obese that way are because they do not care about their health so much and prefer an unhealthy lifestyle, therefore, those people should pay higher insurance rates because they choose to behave in ways that pose risks to their health. To begin with, people who are obese should pay higher insurance rate because they choose to ruin their health by choosing unhealthy food rather than healthy food. The choices on food have a close connection with people’s health problems. Based on the definition that was given by NIH, obesity is caused by eating a diet high in fat and calories.That is to say, people’s choice on food affects this problem significantly. Nowadays, people have lots of choices on food. There are always many health options available to people besides unhealthy food. However, some people would like to choose food that contains high calories rather than fres h vegetables, fruit etc. They are more likely to eat food such as cheeseburgers, pizza, soft drinks and fries. It seems like these kinds of food are relative inexpensive, faster to get and even more delicious in some degree.But from a different point of view, these kinds of food contain many calories, which could causes obesity problems later on. One possible reason that people choose eat those unhealthy food might because they think fresh vegetables, fruit and even fresh proteins are expensive for them so they have to eat things like fast food instead since they do not have high incomes even if they want to buy those healthy food. But a good question that worth to think about carefully here is that â€Å"Are these â€Å"healthy† food options really more expensive than â€Å"unhealthy† food? † Take â€Å"fast-food† as an example.According to Mark Bittman, the author of the article â€Å"Is Junk Food Really Cheaper†, which published in New York Time s, a typical order for a family of four is two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas, which cost about 28 dollars. But the home-cooked meal of chicken, salad, potatoes and milk cost on average about 13. 78 dollars and a homemade meal of pinto beans and rice is even cheaper at $9. 26. However, the calories that people get from having fast food is definitely much higher than having healthy goods.With the time goes along, there is a big chance that people’s eating habit will be changed into unhealthy way and finally leads to obesity and even results in obese related problems. That is to say, eating health does not mean eating expensive. It is about what you choose to eat. Some people might argue that they want to cook at home but the grocery stores are far away from them and some of them are even do not know how to cook. However, according to research conducted by Department of Agriculture, 93 percent of those with limited access to supermarkets do have access to vehicles.That being said, even if taking the long route to putting food on the table may not be easy, but for most Americans it remains a choice. The idea is that if you can drive to McDonald’s you can drive to Safeway as well. Cook a health meal is not a complicate job. There are lots of books on the cashier that teach people how to cook the health food. Why don’t you take the responsibility to learn how to prepare a health meal and protect your family or yourself from obesity related health issues? Beside, it is understandable that people live in fast pace society now and barely have time to prepare health meals.But why don't you spend less time watching TV everyday? Your time is there. By spending less time watching TV, you could not only prepared health food but also burned extra calories while preparing the food, which is also helpful. That being said, money, time and cook skills might not the excuses for people who choose to eat unhealthy food and ruin their healthy this way. Choosing what kinds food to eat is totally a personal choice, of people have the unhealthy eating style they have, they are more likely to become obese and get some obese related problems such as diabetes.As we discussed above, government spent huge amount of money to cure those people. In another words, people who care about their health and choose a health eating habit pay tax dollars to government every years just can get less benefits than what they should have because there is a part of their tax dollars go to cure those people who ruin their health by choosing unhealthy life style. In short, obese people should pay higher insurance rates for themselves than non-obese people because the diseases they get is caused by their obesity and their obesity caused by the unhealthy eating habit they choose.Another reason why obese people should pay higher insurance rates is because they barely take some actions such as, do more exercising to control their weight. Doing some exercises could help them stay away from obese related health problems and then save huge amount of money every year. We should take two different situations into consideration. One is that people who are obese but already taking some exercises to lose some weight. Those groups of obese people might already understand that obesity could results in many health diseases and would bring negative externality to society.However, another group is the people who are obese but still do not want to take actions to keep them away from health diseases. Those groups of people are the people who need to pay higher insurance because they do not care about their health in the beginning and do not even care if they will bring negative impact on society. Moreover, those people perhaps think that government will pay expensive expenses for them when they get sick because they have health insurance like anyone else do.That is to say, it en courages those people to not take actions to help themselves away from obese related health problems if the insurance rates stay the same for anybody. Some people might say that it is kind of discrimination that requires people who are obese to pay higher insurance rates than non-obese people. It seems reasonable in some degree. Why should insurance rates depend on people’s appearance? However, in order to look at this problem fairly, let's consider two important questions.The first question is â€Å"do obese people have a choice between being fat and not fat? † This is a very important question to think about before deciding whether obese people should pay higher insurance rates or not. If being obese is more about â€Å"nature† thing that has something to do with â€Å"genes† and people who are obese do not have controls on that, then, they should not pay higher insurance than non-obese and if they are required to do so, it is definitely a discriminatio n and it would just end up punishing people who are already punished by their health.According to ObesityinAmerica. org, obesity is not always caused by simple behavioral issues, it has something to do with genes. For example, genetic determinations such as the way a body expends energy, hormones that affect the way calories are processed, and other organ systems in the body can all affect appetite. These groups of people do not have control on how they will be born, but they do have controls on whether they want to take initiative to have a healthy eating habits and life styles, which could help them away from obesity related problems.The idea is that as long as they realized the potential health issues they might have and helping themselves away from these dangers, they should not be required to pay higher health insurance rates since their behaviors could ease heavy economic burden on government. However, other type of people, who have choice on being obese or not, should pay hig her health insurance rates if they â€Å"choose† to be obese by having unhealthy eating habits and sedentary lifestyle because they choose to place a negative externality to society, then, we should ask that for those people who â€Å"choose† to be obese, do they impose an cost on other people?Unfortunately, the answer would be yes. Those people believe they have the right to choose their own lifestyle even though it is bad for their health, but what they didn't noticed is that their â€Å"right† would impose an cost on people who have a health lifestyle. It is common sense that obesity can cause many diseases. Author Yves Engler, who is a Canadian writer and political activist, mentions in his article â€Å"Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations† that â€Å"Researchers claim there are links between obesity and more than 30 medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cancers and possibly Alzheimer’sâ₠¬ .In other words, obesity is not just about how you look like physically, it actually causes many fatal diseases, which cost much to cure. Yves Engler points out in the same article that â€Å"The U. S. National Institute of Health estimates that the annual costs of treating obesity-related conditions are at least $120 billion†, that is to say, larger proportions of tax dollars were used to treat people who are ruining their own healthy by choosing a bad healthy life style.Then, why should people who care about their health and choose health life style paid the money for those group of people who claims that they have their own â€Å"right† to choose what they want. It does not make sense that someone who doesn't care about their health by eating excessive amounts of unhealthy food and spending few time exercising pays the same insurance premium of a person who makes it a priority to keep their health in the best possible shape they can. In some degree, requires obes e people pay higher health insurance is just like require dangerous driver pay higher car insurance rates.The driver could have options to drive safely, but he/she choose drive dangerously instead and because of his/her dangerous driving, it would put others life and properties in a risky place. So, is it kind of discrimination if car insurance companies charge higher rates to those dangerous drivers than drivers who drive safely? It is probably not. The idea the require obese people tp pay higher insurance rates is not because government want to take advantages from obese people, it is because it is a good way to encourage obese people control their life style.That being said, requiring people who obese pay higher insurance rates is not discrimination. It is a fair way that redistributes health care expenses and encourages them to pay attention to their health. All in all, those people who realized they are obese but do not want to take initiative do to control their weight should pay higher insurance because their own â€Å"choice† brings a negative externality on society. Because of their unhealthy ifestyle, they would more likely to get obese related health problem than non-obese people and then demand more health care resource than non-obese people, they should responsible for the cost that resulted by their own choices. Work Cited â€Å"U. S. Obesity Trends. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 May. 2012. . Nilsson, Siri. â€Å"Good Luck If You're Searching for Good-for-You Eats. † ABC News.ABC News Network, 26 Sept. 2006. Web. 27 May. 2012. . â€Å"Obesity In America: What's Driving The Epidemic?. † Harvard Men's Health Watch 16. 7 (2012): 5-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 May. 2012 â€Å"2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. † : Contents. 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 May. 2012. ;http://www. health. gov/paguidelines/guidelines/default. as px;. â€Å"Understanding Obesity. † Understanding Obesity. 12 Jan. 2008. Web. 28 May 2012. ;http://www. obesityinamerica. rg/understandingObesity/index. cfm;. Bittman, Mark. â€Å"OP-ED COLUMNIST; Is Junk Food Really Cheaper. † The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 June 2012. ;http://www. nytimes. com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper. html? pagewanted=all;. Engler, Yves. â€Å"English 1022 Online–Spring 2010. † : Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 June 2012. ;http://spring2010online1022. blogspot. com/2010/02/obesity-much-of-responsibility-lies. html;.