The war in other countries is plentiful but few, in particular, have had the US dragged into them. One that […]
The war in other countries is plentiful but few, in particular, have had the US dragged into them. One that […]
Captivity is defined by “the condition of being imprisoned or confined.” Captivity is something two very strong women faced but […]
One of the purposes of the United States’ border policy is to protect the citizens of
this great country from non-citizens who intend to harm or acts of violence against those within its borders. A main goals of this policy is to know, at all times, who is inside the massive national borders that stretch all the way from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, covering thousands of miles of land. About one million immigrants arrive to the United States legally every year. Yet every year there are also an estimated 800,000 people who enter this country illegally, or illegally overstay their visa (“Immigration and the Border” par. 4). This means that nearly one out of every two immigrants that is in the United States is here illegally. There is basically no record of where they are and what they doing here. This could potentially have a tremendously negative effect on what the United States is so proudly known for: a strong economy, a safe home for its citizens, fair and equal employment, and a free people. With so many illegal aliens within our borders, it is unclear how safe the American people really are since it is unclear what these alien’s intentions are in United States. The United States currently has a very poor immigration policy that is in desperate need of a change. Particularly, The United States needs to reform its border protection policy under the plan of presidential candidate Barck Obama in order to create safer borders for its citizens.
The Iraq war was declared by George Bush on March 20, 2003. This war is also known as the Second Golf War, the Occupation of Iraq, and The War in Iraq. (Wikipedia) The war is a response to the attacks on September 11th and the belief that Iraq had amassed Weapons of Mass destruction. Their was a belief that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and that the United States needed to act immediately to eliminate this threat. Since that day we have lost over 4,000 soldiers (icasualties) and it has cost the United States $565,308,329,744 and is getting higher (national priorities). On the contrary, we have removed the dictator Saddam Hussein from power and forced the Al-Qaeda terrorist group into hiding. Now that it is election time, our candidates need to decide what their plan for our future presence in Iraq if they are to be elected.
Discrimination and prejudice were very common acts during the time that To Kill A Mockingbird took place. Prejudice in this book is displayed by the acts of hate and misunderstanding because of someone’s color. For example when Tom Robinson was on trial for rape that everyone knew he didn’t commit, but because of the color they still want to put him in jail. During this time in the southern states, black people had to use separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, sections in restaurants, churches, sit in separate places, and even go to separate schools. An example in this book that shows that they sat in different places was in the court room the colored sections had to sit up in the balconies. Even though a lot of the discrimination was towards blacks, there was also discrimination towards families that did not have money, such as the Ewell family.
Leading up to the Earthquake, foreshocks occurred in San Francisco, California of April 18, 1906. It was caused by the San Andreas Fault as a strike-slip fault that happened at 5:12 am. Before the destruction, there was stress deep in the grounds, plates were grinding. Its shaking and stress commenced from San Bautista to midway of North and West, approximately more than 295.5 miles, at 5:13 am. Abruptly, a temblor occurred, the first shock waves at about 5:13 am spread epidemically. Seismic waves spreads, it made a surface change, its motion into liquid-like. The surface was shaking intensely that some cracks and faults in the ground appeared. Most of the grounds were torn or heaved, the magnitude was 7.8 and above. The temblor lasted for about a single minute.
Certainly when it comes to the 2008 presidential election senator Barack Obama is at the top of the list. Barack Obama was the fifth African American senator in the united state’s history and the only African American currently serving in the United States Senate. Senator Obama had just served three years in the Senate in Illinois before his announcement to run for presidency. But after November 3, 2008 America Brought about change and for the first time in American history elected the first African American president, Barack Obama. In my opinion he is a highly motivated speaker and is an advocate for better America. President Obama was a candidate that branched out to all political parties. Upon reading me Obama book CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN I came across some interesting policies and political challenges that we as Americans are facing in this critical time. The main political view that drew my attention was that precedent’s Obama plan to strengthen civil rights and fight for a fairer justice system, end racial profiling and protect the right to vote just reminded ones self of all the injustices that we as a nation still have to overcome. The American people could have not nominated a better man. Barack Obama’s record speaks for itself. President Obama has worked to promote civil right and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights attorney, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination and voting right cases. As a senator Obama passed one of the countries first racial profiling laws he has been a leading advocate in protecting the rights to vote and helping to re authorize the voting rights act and leading opposition against discriminatory barriers to vote and will work to enforce civil right laws.
Inspiring a Vision – In-depth Analysis of “I have a Dream”
I see a dream; I see the dream of Martin Luther King as he graphically describes his shared vision. I see that inspiring a vision is not easy to reach. But I can see that a leader with great credibility will be capable of such superiority. Such as influencing their followers or even convince their advocates to pursue in the same dream through encouraging and expressive speeches. Martin Luther King is an example of a great leader who was able to use his credibility as a leader and inspired people to share a common vision for the future. His famous “I have a dream” speech expressed his dream and vision for the African American population of America. The idea of using no violence to restore basic civil rights and equality to African Americans in America was desirable among his people and had not been done before, which made it extra exciting for those who can relate through his aspiration. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech demonstrates how he inspired a vision by appealing to others to share an exciting futuristic dream, he also exemplified the “big picture” of what he aspired to accomplish and he spoke with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and principle of his belief.
From the beginning of John Kennedy’s Administration into this fifth year of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, substantially the same small groups of men have presided over the destiny of the United States. In that time they have carried the country from a limited involvement in Vietnam into a war that is brutal, probably unsinkable, and, to an increasing body of opinion, calamitous and immoral. How could it happen? Many in government or close to it will read the following article with the shock of recognition. Those less familiar with the processes of power can read it with assurance that the author had a firsthand opportunity to watch the slide down the slippery slope during five years (1961-1966) of service in the White House and Department of State. Mr. Thomson is an East Asia specialist and an assistant professor of history at Harvard. AS a case study in the making of foreign policy, the Vietnam War will fascinate historians and social scientists for many decades to come. One question that will certainly be asked: How did men of superior ability, sound training, and high ideals — American policy-makers of the 1960s — create such costly and divisive policy? As one who watched the decision-making process in Washington from 1961 to 1966 under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, I can suggest a preliminary answer. I can do so by briefly listing some of the factors that seemed to me to shape our Vietnam policy during my years as an East Asia specialist at the State Department and the White House. I shall deal largely with Washington as I saw or sensed it, and not with Saigon, where I have spent but a scant three days, in the entourage of the Vice President, or with other decision centers, the capitals of interested parties. Nor will I deal with other important parts of the record: Vietnam’s history prior to 1961, for instance, or the overall course of America’s relations with Vietnam. Yet a first and central ingredient in these years of Vietnam decisions does involve history. The ingredient was the legacy of the 1950s — by which I mean the so-called “loss of China,” the Korean War, and the Far East policy of Secretary of State Dulles. This legacy had an institutional by-product for the Kennedy Administration: in 1961 the U.S. government’s East Asian establishment was undoubtedly the most rigid and doctrinaire of Washington’s regional divisions in foreign affairs. This was especially true at the Department of State, where the incoming Administration found the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs the hardest nut to crack. It was a bureau that had been purged of its best China expertise, and of farsighted, dispassionate men, as a result of McCarthyism. Its members were generally committed to one policy line: the close containment and isolation of mainland China, the harassment of “neutralist” nations which sought to avoid alignment with either Washington or Peking, and the maintenance of a network of alliances with anti-Communist client states on China’s periphery. Another aspect of the legacy was the special vulnerability and sensitivity of the new Democratic Administration on Far East policy issues. The memory of the McCarthy era was still very sharp, and Kennedy’s margin of victory was too thin. The 1960 Offshore Islands TV debate between Kennedy and Nixon had shown the President-elect the perils of “fresh thinking.” The Administration was inherently leery of moving too fast on Asia. As a result, the Far East Bureau (now the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs) was the last one to be overhauled. Not until Averell Harriman was brought in as Assistant Secretary in December, 1961, were significant personnel changes attempted, and it took Harriman several months to make a deep imprint on the bureau because of his necessary preoccupation with the Laos settlement. Once he did so, there was virtually no effort to bring back the purged or exiled East Asia experts. There were other important by-products of this “legacy of the fifties”: The new Administration inherited and somewhat shared a general perception of China-on-the-march — a sense of China’s vastness, its numbers, its belligerence; a revived sense, perhaps, of the Golden Horde. This was a perception fed by Chinese intervention in the Korean War (an intervention actually based on appallingly bad communications and mutual miscalculation on the part of Washington and Peking; but the careful unraveling of that tragedy, which scholars have accomplished, had not yet become part of the conventional wisdom). The new Administration inherited and briefly accepted a monolithic conception of the Communist bloc. Despite much earlier predictions and reports by outside analysts, policy-makers did not begin to accept the reality and possible finality of the Sino-Soviet split until the first weeks of 1962. The inevitably corrosive impact of competing nationalisms on Communism was largely ignored. The new Administration inherited and to some extent shared the “domino theory” about Asia. This theory resulted from profound ignorance of Asian history and hence ignorance of the radical differences among Asian nations and societies. It resulted from a blindness to the power and resilience of Asian nationalisms. (It may also have resulted from a subconscious sense that, since “all Asians look alike,” all Asian nations will act alike.) As a theory, the domino fallacy was not merely inaccurate but also insulting to Asian nations; yet it has continued to this day to beguile men who should know better. Finally, the legacy of the fifties was apparently compounded by an uneasy sense of a worldwide Communist challenge to the new Administration after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. A first manifestation was the President’s traumatic Vienna meeting with Khrushchev in June, 1961; then came the Berlin crisis of the summer. All this created an atmosphere in which President Kennedy undoubtedly felt under special pressure to show his nation’s mettle in Vietnam — if the Vietnamese, unlike the people of Laos, were willing to fight. In general, the legacy of the fifties shaped such early moves of the new Administration as the decisions to maintain a high-visibility SEATO (by sending the Secretary of State himself instead of some underling to its first meeting in 1961), to back away from diplomatic recognition of Mongolia in the summer of 1961, and most important, to expand U.S. military assistance to South Vietnam that winter on the basis of the much more tentative Eisenhower commitment. It should be added that the increased commitment to Vietnam was also fueled by a new breed of military strategists and academic social scientists (some of whom had entered the new Administration) who had developed theories of counter guerrilla warfare and were eager to see them put to the test. To some, “counterinsurgency” seemed a new panacea for coping with the world’s instability. SO MUCH for the legacy and the history. Any new Administration inherits both complicated problems and simplistic views of the world. But surely among the policy-makers of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations there were men who would warn of the dangers of an open-ended commitment to the Vietnam quagmire? This raises a central question, at the heart of the policy process: Where were the experts, the doubters, and the dissenters? Were they there at all, and if so, what happened to them?
“How Did Humanity Begin” has been a question for over thousands of years. Well, finally, we have the answer, at least what I think the answer is. I believe mostly in the science of our world and universe. That includes the big bang theory and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. I am not saying that this is the best solution; it sounds to me the most likely. This question may seem unknown, but now we may know what happened.