10 PUNCTUATION MARKS

1. The period (.) is placed at the end of declarative sentences,

statements thought to be complete and after many
abbreviations.
2. Use a question mark (?) to indicate a direct question when placed
at the end of a sentence.
3. The exclamation point (!) is used when a person wants to express
a sudden outcry or add emphasis.
4. The comma is used to show a separation of ideas or elements
within the structure of a sentence. Additionally, it is used in
numbers, dates and letter writing after the salutation and
closing.
5. The semicolon (;) is used to connect independent clauses. It
shows a closer relationship between the clauses than a period
would show.
6. A colon (:) has three main uses. The first is after a word
introducing a quotation, an explanation, an example, or a series.
7. A dash is used to separate words into statements. There are two
common types of dashes: en dash and em dash.
8. A hyphen is used to join two or more words together into a
compound term and is not separated by spaces. For example,
part-time, back-to-back, well-known.
9. An apostrophe (') is used to indicate the omission of a letter or
letters from a word, the possessive case, or the plurals of
lowercase letters.
10. Quotations marks (" ") are a pair of punctuation marks used
primarily to mark the beginning and end of a passage attributed
to another and repeated word for word. They are also used to
indicate meanings and to indicate the unusual or dubious status
of a word.
 10 SEQUENCE MARKERS

 Finally- after a long time, typically involving difficulty or

delay.

 Then- at that time; at the time in question.

 In addition- as an extra person, thing, or circumstance.

 Afterwards- at a later or future time; subsequently.

 But- used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with

what has already been mentioned.

 Meanwhile- in the intervening period of time.

 Nevertheless- in spite of that; notwithstanding; all the same.

 Lastly- in the last place (used to introduce the last of a series

of points or actions).

 Furthermore- in addition; besides (used to introduce a fresh

consideration in an argument).

 Next- (of a time or season) coming immediately after the

time of writing or speaking.
 INFORMATIVE ARTICLE

Green Funeral
What is a “Green Funeral”?
According to the Green Burial Council, “Green burial is
burial that can take place without the use of
formaldehyde-based embalming, metal caskets, and
concrete burial vaults. It’s essentially the way most of
humanity has cared for its dead for thousands of years
up until the late 19th century.”

According to Mark Harris, author of “Grave Matters: A

Journey Through the Modern Funeral Industry to a
Natural Way of Burial,” “It’s a lot more than just about
the environment. It’s a return to tradition. It speaks to
the idea of dust to dust,” Harris said. “This is the way
we used to bury people, in the first hundred years of
our country’s history.”

This is exactly what a Jewish funeral entails. We do not

use embalming, but instead use refrigeration. Not only
are the caskets used in Jewish funerals constructed of
wood, but they are assembled without the use of any
metal or non-biodegradable fasteners. The caskets are
assembled using glue and wooden dowels. Therefore,
in accordance with Jewish Law, our caskets do not
delay the “dust to dust” requirements.
 TAKE GOOD CARE OF THE EARTH

“Take Good Care of the Earth”. This was the bumper sticker that
found its way to the rear of many of the cars my friends and I drove
in college. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that even
though the message was subtle, 40 years ago my friends and I were
unaware of the environmental challenges that would confront our
generation as we entered the 21st century.

As a Jewish Funeral Director and member of the Jewish Funeral

Directors of America(JFDA), I can imagine the previous paragraph
included with slight variations on every JFDA member’s website
nationwide. A favorite blanket might accompany a shroud but not
replace a shroud, and concrete vaults are often a cemetery
requirement, but the intent is virtually the same “And thus we give
back to the earth, that which was of the earth”, a prayer recited at a
Jewish burial was not written with the environment in mind. It was
so practical and sound in its roots, it has stood the test of time-
some two to three thousand years. Although a common
misunderstood fact that a plain pine box is a requirement, there is
nothing written about any type of box or container to be used in a
Jewish burial. It could be said that many of the edicts found in the
green burial movement today are the adaptations of Jewish funerals
in a modern day world. In Israel today, the body, or “Met” is
brought to the cemetery in a container, removed and buried in the
ground with friends, family and the community completing the task
of burial. No casket, no vault, only the shroud.

As the movement in the funeral industry may be debated between

green burials and cremations as it relates to the environment, JFDA
members can sit this debate out, knowing that the sages of our
tradition were not only scholars of their time, but in their wisdom
were thousands of years ahead of their time as “protectors of the
earth”. Their wisdom of “we come from the earth as so to the earth
we shall return”, is not a convenient environmental debate, but what
Tevya famously declared in “Fiddler on the Roof”, “TRADITION,
TRADITION”!
 JOURNALISTIC ARTICLE

Former President Declared Missing

Texas State Police have now confirmed that former
President George W. Bush has been officially declared a
“missing person.”
Rumors of his disappearance have surfaced repeatedly ever
since his ominously named “Farewell Tour” in 2008
“That’s when it became obvious,” said a police spoke man.
“After all a president doesn’t just disappear!”
“Don’t you think it’s strange,” they noted, “that Republicans
have held almost 20 debates without even mentioning his
name?”
Further suspicions were aroused at the time when five men
who “looked an awful lot like Republican presidential
candidates” were overheard by a waitress working the
graveyard
shift at a Texas diner talking about “burying Bush so deep
that no one could find him.”
“When I asked them what they meant by that,” she said,
“they just smiled and left a really big tip. But as they were
leaving I overheard them bragging about being experts at
shoveling.”
When questioned about Bush’s disappearance, most of the
Republicans at CPAC seemed either confused or dismissive.
“Bush who??” was a common response.
Conservative darling, Rick Santorum, accused the questioner
of “gotcha journalism” and said he wasn’t going to be
provoked to use what every Republican recognized as a
“four letter word.”
Newt Gingrich went even further.
Candidate Mitt Romney concurred, and offered this
incontrovertible proof. “Just look at the economy. If we had
had a Republican president who lowered tax rates, removed
regulations from business, and pursued an aggressive
foreign policy worthy of America, we wouldn’t be in the fix
we’re in today. It’s impossible.”
 Redskins Change Their Name

Bowing finally to intense media pressure, the NFL

Washington Redskins today announced that they are
changing their name to the Washington Palefaces.
A change in the organization’s name had been under
discussion for several years as a result of protests from
liberal and Indian groups. Those groups appeared to
believe that the name carried with it an implicitly racist
perspective since it has been used to define people simply
because of their skin color.
The Redskins organization had disputed that claim all
along, saying the name had no racist implication what is
over, that, in fact, it represented “the more positive aspects
of relations between Indians and whites,” affectionately
recalling that time when Indians were considered “savages”
because they fought a heroic but losing battle against the
white theft of their lands. They also pointed out that in poll
after poll the vast majority (83%) of Americans now living
on those former Indian territories do not see the term
“Redskins” as offensive at all. According to Tony Wyllie,
spoke person for the team, the new name was chosen
because it carries with it the same positive values as the
previous one. It recalls the same heroic era in American
culture, the same sense of solidarity among Americans.
And most importantly, it “just goes to show that names
associated with skin color are completely benign and
inoffensive.”
Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski,
White and
Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies to investigate the
strength of the theoretical relationship between stigma
and personality responsibility, and stigma and
dangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited two models to
account for stigmatizing reactions. In the first model,
labeled personal responsibility, personality responsibility
influences both the level of pity and anger displayed
toward mental patients. Additionally, the variables of pity
and anger influence helping behavior.
In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived
dangerousness influences fear of mental patients, which
in turn influences the avoidance of the mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan etal. (2002), administered a
questionnaire to 216 community college students. This
questionnaire contained items which would allow the
examination of the two models. The results of a path
analysis indicated that while both models fit the data, the
results for the dangerousness model seemed far more
consistent with the data.
Their second study was an attempt to manipulate
variables in the models. Participants met with either an
educational group or a mental patient. During the
meetings, either myths about the personality
responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients
were discussed and debunked. While education yielded
some positive results, contact with mental patients
produced stronger results.
 LITERARY ARTICLE

Alexander and Link (2003) examined the

stigma of mental illness, perceptions of
dangerousness and social distance in a
telephone survey. They found that, as a
participant’s own life contact with mentally ill
individuals increased, participants were both
less likely to perceive a target mentally ill
individual in a vignette as physically
dangerous and less likely to desire social
distance from the target. This relationship
remained after controlling for demographic
and confound variables, such as gender,
ethnicity, education, income and political
conservatism. They also found that any type
of contact –with a friend, a spouse, a family
member, a work contact, or a contact in a
public place – with mentally ill individuals
reduced perceptions of dangerousness of the
target in the vignette.