1 Essays on Contemporary at EssayPedia.com
Subcategories
Contact us
Toll-free for US only: 1-866-509-5959 Order custom essays:
Instant Quote
Urgency:
Degree:
Type of work:
Pages:
275 words/page
Price: $0
Make an order
Our Prices
14 days per page
10 days per page
6 days per page
3 days per page
2 days per page
24 hours per page
12 hours per page
6 hours per page
3 hours per page
Note: The prices are given for High School academic level. Please, visit "Prices" page for the detailed prices.
Contemporary
The decision for the trial over the 2000 Election was both just and right. Gore contested the election a couple days after George W. Bush was pronounced the victor. The Supreme Court granted Al Gore's campaign a recount on justible cause. The recount process ended up taking longer than they thought it would. When the recount went past the grace period granted to them the Supreme Court granted them some more time. This time was not enough for the Gore campaign and they wanted more time. The Florida Supreme Court stepped in, as it is their right to do so, and said no more time. The Gore campaign was unable to overturn the election decision and George W. Bush won the election and became President of the Untied States of America. On November 18, 2000, eleven days after the election, the first recount came to an end. The recount proved George W. Bush to have won the Florida election by 930 votes out of over 5 million votes. Statistically that made the Florida election a tie and crushed Florida's secretary of the state, Katherine Harris', attempt to crown Bush the winner and end the 2000 Presidential Election. The Gore campaign had reason to believe that this was not a fair recount and wanted another heavily monitored recount. The Supreme Court granted the Gore campaign exactly what they wanted. They had thousands and thousands votes recounted. After this recount it still proved George W. Bush to be the new President of the United States of America. Gore was now even bitterer and days before the grace period was up Gore wanted another recount. Katherine Harris and the Florida Supreme Court used their powers to deny this recount and gave the victory to George W. Bush. One of the reasons why this was the best...
pages: 3 (words: 707)
comments: 0
added: 01/28/2012
We've all heard it before. Every time the possibility arises that the United States might intervene in the Middle East, out come the old slogans. "No blood for OIL!" "Stop the OIL war!" "Don't fight for Exxon!" We heard it during the Cold War. We heard it during the Gulf War. And of course there has been no shortage of such expressions in recent weeks, as the chances of war against Iraq seem to increase daily. As one who thinks war with Iraq would be justified, and might even be necessary, I've given some thought to how to respond to this argument. On a certain level it doesn't even rise to the level of an argument; it is simply an assertion, most appropriate for bumper stickers, but uttered as if it were self-evident. For example, the author of a recent letter to The Collegian, Ashland University's student newspaper, simply lists a few facts—American consume "more 25 percent of the world's oil output", Iraq has "the world's second-largest proven reserves of oil in the world," and American oil companies "currently have no stake in the Iraqi oil market"—then connects the dots to conclude that any war against Iraq would have nothing to do with liberating Iraqis from a brutal tyrant, but everything to do with "liberating oil." At its heart this is nothing more than what even sophisticated leftists refer to as "vulgar Marxism." There is no need to prove that the Bush administration has oil in mind. One must merely show that there is a possibility that a material interest might be involved, then sit back with a knowing smirk, confident that the true motive has been uncovered. Further evidence—indeed, any further argument—is unnecessary. The rhetoric coming from the White House and the Pentagon might fool the hoi polloi, but not the...
pages: 4 (words: 944)
comments: 0
added: 10/17/2011
When average Americans apply for jobs, they hope that the companies acknowledge Equal Opportunity. They know that the color of skin, gender, or even physical disabilities do not hinder the person's capabilities to grasp the job; he or she earns it through skills and qualifications pertaining to that career. How can America justifiably discriminate by allowing Equal Opportunity to some but not for all? Therefore, the president of the United States must not be selected based on gender or the color of the skin, but elected by the content of character and political views. Throughout history, America has cultivated a diverse group of presidents. True, all were Caucasian men, but their backgrounds, personalities, and values cover the vast fields of difference, from quiet Jefferson to idealistic Wilson to the scandalous and drunk Grant. Also, most people can name terrible leaders (i.e. Pierce, Hoover, or Nixon) and great (Lincoln and Washington). What made them terrible or great? Race or gender obviously played no part; politics separated these people. Charisma and liberalism probably come to mind when one hears Barack Obama's name. He speaks beautifully, supports minimum wage increase, and believes in universal health care. However, some people think America takes a mighty step forward with him because he is African American. Since race should play no part, it stands important that America has already seen Obama—twice in a century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Kennedy also spoke eloquently and possessed far left ideas for transforming the nation: the New Deal and the New Frontier. All three work(ed) for the people, supporting them, helping them achieve the American dream of freedom and equality for all. Some people also believe Hillary Clinton's chance of being president marches women's rights a mile forward, but she cannot be elected merely because of gender. She, too, deserves the equal...
pages: 2 (words: 495)
comments: 0
added: 12/25/2011
Each child that grows up in America by law is supposed to attend schooling from first grade through the age of sixteen. The purpose is so that being that all people in the country will be literate, and able to be a productive member of society. Does this mean that all students must reach the same level of education, the same level of literacy? Unfortunately, not all students that attend school until they are sixteen will have the same education. Many schools do not have the resources needed to prepare students properly. Is it the fault of the students, the school or the community? So what should schools do? Many people who study education have different views on how to deal with that question. Mike Rose, and E.D. Hirsch are two people who have very different views on education. I believe that schools need to tailor their education systems to fit the students that they are teaching. Kids today are coming from very different backgrounds, and that should be taken into consideration when preparing a curriculum for school. Students who are coming from rough areas are going to have a difficult time focusing on school. Some kids will be wondering when they are going to be able to find food for their next meal, while others may be afraid to go home. There is no way that these students are going to be able to pay attention in classes, and get all their homework done. I don't think that students should ever be looked down upon, or be viewed as "un-teachable", but rather there should be a different way that they are able to learn the same basic concepts that are taught in high schools. As soon as a child feels that they are unable to do something that student is going...
pages: 5 (words: 1266)
comments: 0
added: 02/01/2012
Analysis and Review of "Hillary's Choice" by Gail Sheehy Hillary's Choice, written by Gail Sheehy, has to be one of the most intriguing books I have recently read. Most literary works have the tendency to start off slow, wind up to a climax and finally produce a strong finish. It is not the case you find when you read Hillary's Choice. From the very beginning you are introduced to the scandals that the Clinton's have had to endure throughout their lives. That is why the first chapter is labeled as, "Into the Flames." You are being taken straight into the heart of the hell you might say, this will later become the climactic point of the book, the biggest and most painful scandal to occur to former President Bill Clinton, his extramarital relation with intern Monica Lewinsky. Gail Sheehy, in this first chapter alone provides you with juicy details to keep the reader interested, fascinated and to provide an insight of what awaits the reader within the book. As you read further, "into the flames (of hell)," the story begins to take a turn into revealing the childhood of both Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton himself. The conversion from scandals to childhood is accomplished in-order for the reader to acquire an understanding of why and how the Clinton's came to be the way they are. As you proceed in reading you will be fascinated with some of the stories you encounter. Some of them have been portrayed by the media and other stories have definitely been kept "in the closet," until now. From the title of the book being "Hillary's Choice" you would think that the book would solely depict Hillary Rodham's life and the choices she has made throughout her career, but it's quite the contrary. You as the reader are...
pages: 6 (words: 1610)
comments: 0
added: 01/05/2012
In the aftermath of the recent September 11 attacks, the ordinary Americans continue to ask why it happened, they still ask themselves this question why there is so much hatred towards their beloved America? Their America -the land of liberty and opportunities. Their home which has been so hospitable to so many immigrants, sharing their freedom and the goodness of the American way of life. But the American people ought to know that it is not them but their foreign policies that are so hated. The problem lies in the fact that the "American goodness" is hardly exported; it remains confined to its shores. What we hear about the American liberty and rules of law and democracy are rarely practiced in their Foreign Policy. Today as things stand their foreign policy towards the developing countries can be branded "immoral" because it employs double standards, is self-serving and justifies the use of excessive force. (Several current world events highlight the double standards employed in the US foreign policy, most noted of which are the situations in Iraq and Palestine) The American government claims that it condemns and looks down upon crime on children by adults. When a few American children are killed in school shootings then the whole nation mourns and the media is used to blast the whole issue out of proportion to gain sympathy from people all over the world. But if we look carefully at the situation in Iraq after the economic sanctions were imposed we would get to see the first signs of double standards in the American foreign policy towards the Middle East. The economic embargo imposed on Iraq has destroyed the counties entire infrastructure and the people to suffer the most have been the children of Iraq. According to foreign affairs, 576000 children have died as a result of...
pages: 6 (words: 1539)
comments: 0
added: 01/23/2012
The primaries are a set of elections in our country that determine the two candidates for the presidential election. Each state holds its own elections for the registered voters, and the candidates from each party are selected. Some states have different primary elections whether they are "open" or "closed." These two terms apply to what kind of voter participation is allowed. Closed primaries allow registered party voters to participate in that party's election whereas the open ones allow any registered voter to participate in one of the elections. This election year the democratic candidates are battling for the primaries with the hope of running against incumbent George W. Bush for the presidency. At this point it is hard to say who is truly ahead in campaigning for the democrats. A good start is often helpful to a particular candidate but as George Bush showed us last election, it isn't everything. As of now four democratic candidates stick out as strong contenders. In terms of polling, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, and Dick Gephardt stand in the lead thus far, with Joe Lieberman a close competitor. The polls, however, are all from different sources, including the Associated Press poll, a CNN/Times poll and some others, and the true leader will not be evident until the election is complete. When examining what is going on here in terms of political analysis we must look at the lenses as we learned them from Lowi this semester. They are based on five simple principles: The Rationality Principle, the Collective Action Principle, the Institution Principle, the Policy Principle and the History Principle. By using these "lenses" se can look at the primaries in a way that can answer questions and explain what the election is really about and how it works so that we may...
pages: 10 (words: 2503)
comments: 0
added: 12/20/2011
Hate. Anger. Confusion. Power. War. All of these are words can be used to describe the Arab-Israeli conflict, but no words have can describe an effective way to solve it. Since the creation of Israel, a never-ending struggle between the Arabs and Israelis has taken place. This has more than often resulted in violent measures causing countless deaths. Numerous peace talks have been had, but almost all agreements have crumbled. Since the Jews persecution by the Nazis, the Jewish refugees were forced to search for a land to call their home. What better land to chose but land that God had graced upon them from their creation? The land formerly known as Palestine was their choice. The Arabs were angered at the Jews invasion of their land. The Arabs felt that they had no reason to give up land because of mistreatment of Jews in Europe. This had led to fueled battles for control of towns and cities of Palestine. Britain, who had controlled Palestine at the time, could not control the flaring tempers of the Jews and Arabs. Still feeling the aftermath of WWII, Britain pulled its forces out of Palestine and put it into the hands of the UN. The UN in turn had tried to separate the land into Jewish and Arab states. Arabs believe that placing the Jews in Palestine is an exertion of power by the western nations. I do not believe it was an exertion of power as much as he UN was just trying to find the Jews a home. It was a stupid move to place them in Palestine, and the UN knew that Arabs would be outraged, but they persisted to place the Jews on Arab territory. The UN may have been trying to do good, but they needed to think things through...
pages: 5 (words: 1148)
comments: 0
added: 11/25/2011
Anthrax is not a common disease. On average less than 5 Americans a year get infected with it by natural causes. Anthrax is an infectious disease caused by Bacillus Anthracis, a spore-forming bacterium most commonly found in domestic and wild animals. They contract it from contaminated soil, in which spores can remain active for decades. Humans can contract the disease if they are exposed to an infected animal, which most commonly happens on a farm because of the close contact between the farmer and the livestock. It primarily affects grazing animals, such as sheep, horses, cattle, and goats. The disease can be transmitted three ways: through the skin (cuts and abrasions), inhalation (air born spores that enter the lungs), and ingestion (undercooked meat, or contaminated foods). Symptoms usually appear within seven days. Inhalation is the most common form of contraction when infected from a bio-weapon. The symptoms of inhalation most resemble that of a common flu, except that the disease worsens until death. The microbes multiply in the lymph nodes, spreading deadly toxins into the bloodstream. An average human being would have to breath in over 8000 spores to become infected. Inhalation anthrax is usually fatal. About 90 percent of people who inhale anthrax die. Since Sept 11 there has been close to 100 anthrax cases in the United States. These have not been from natural causes. The Bush administration has labeled this a "bio-terrorist attack." The president said "it wouldn't surprise him" if Osama bin Laden, the person suspected in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, was behind the occurrences. A figure given in this article reads: "51% (of the general population) think the anthrax attacks are acts of terrorism." This is surprising to me. I strongly believe that these attacks were planned and...
pages: 4 (words: 904)
comments: 0
added: 12/29/2011
Becoming President: Natural-Born Citizens Only or All Citizens? Article II, Section I of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural-born citizen, or citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president." This means, according to the 2000 census, that roughly ten percent of the population of Americans are ineligible to run for president, as they are naturalized citizens, not natural-born. This issue has emerged quite a few times in Congress. For instance, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) presented House Joint Resolution 68 in 2000, which would allow naturalized citizens to become president. This concept has never gotten off the ground partly because of the popular public opinion. A national poll in 2003 found that 64% of Americans were against the idea of having naturalized citizens become eligible for presidency (Rourke). Forrest McDonald is an advocate of the Natural-Born only policy. He explains that the reason this was an issue was deemed a necessary inclusion was fear of foreign influence. In fact, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts wanted to take the issue so far as to stop foreigners from becoming citizens at all, claiming that the naturalized citizens would always have divided loyalties both to their home land and to America. John Jay, Superintendent of Foreign Affairs (the predecessor of today's office of Secretary of State), claimed that it would be "wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate from South Carolina, developed an intense plan that would defeat all objections arising against earlier proposals for electing the...
pages: 5 (words: 1247)
comments: 0
added: 02/19/2012
Bin Laden overheard on radio U.S. officials say the voice on the Tora Bora broadcasts matches that of the terrorism suspect. Sunday, December 16, 2001 U.S. forces overheard and recorded Osama bin Laden giving orders over a short-range radio. Bin Laden's fighters are scattering across the rocky and forested mountains as they attempt to surrender, hide or escape. Bin Laden's whereabouts remain unknown, but many U.S. officials and Afghan commanders believe he is still cornered in Tora Bora, where he has built a stronghold of caves, bunkers and tunnels. Afghan commanders and radio transmissions from the fighters on the front indicated that the al-Qaida guerrillas are offering little resistance. Vaccination may be needed to eradicate latent anthrax Sunday, December 16, 2001 Federal officials said that they might soon offer the anthrax vaccine to more than 3,000 people exposed to the virus. Medical experts and federal authorities agreed at a symposium on anthrax treatment that the vaccine should be made available to people exposed to high levels of the bacteria, such as workers in the office of Tom Daschle. They had more anthrax spores in their noses than the amount that would cause an entire building to be shut down, doctors said. The vaccine that is in short supply and has side effects, was designed for preventative use, not for people who already have been exposed to anthrax. Jury convicts man of arson, but not murder Sunday, December 16, 2001 A Vinton County jury acquitted a man of aggravated murder but convicted him of aggravated arson and tampering with evidence. The jury acquitted William W. Mulhern Jr., 30, of killing Jonna Hollingshead, 34, of McArthur Ohio. Her body was found June 2 in her burned-out apartment. William could get up to 13 years in prison. He spent Two months in prison and six months afterward in a community-based correctional facility...
pages: 2 (words: 317)
comments: 0
added: 12/28/2011
sorry about comma errors!!!The United States government is a democracy. In a democratic government every citizen within the country gets to have a say in what decisions are made. In order to get their opinions heard, people join political parties and vote for candidates who represent their position in the government. People who become over enthused about politics, whether it is voters or the politicians themselves, are known as political extremists. Political extremists can be categorized into three main groups: ultraconservatives, ultraliberals, and know-nothings Ultraconservatives are part of the Republican Party. They normally oppose raising the minimum wage, and universal heath care, but support tax cuts for the rich. This is because many ultraconservatives tend to be part of big businesses, or large corporations. In order to save money and get richer, the corporations want the minimum wage stays low, and they do not want to pay more money to ensure that all of their employees have full healthcare benefits. Since the corporations are making more money, they now want to hold on to it. Once they are richer, they do not want their taxes getting raised. Typically ultraconservatives are very religious Christians. Due to their fervent religious beliefs, ultraconservatives often overlap their strong religious beliefs with their political ones. For example ultraconservatives are almost always opposed to same sex marriages. This is because the Christian doctrine states that homosexuality is a sin. Some examples of ultraconservatives include politicians such as George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and John McCain. Ultraliberals are part of the Democratic Party. They support raising the minimum wage, and universal healthcare. They also support more tax brackets with higher pay percentages in the brackets designated for the rich. This is because many ultraliberals tend to be poorer, and part of the working class. Ultraliberals want everyone to have...
pages: 3 (words: 655)
comments: 0
added: 11/08/2011
sorry about comma errors!!!The United States government is a democracy. In a democratic government every citizen within the country gets to have a say in what decisions are made. In order to get their opinions heard, people join political parties and vote for candidates who represent their position in the government. People who become over enthused about politics, whether it is voters or the politicians themselves, are known as political extremists. Political extremists can be categorized into three main groups: ultraconservatives, ultraliberals, and know-nothings Ultraconservatives are part of the Republican Party. They normally oppose raising the minimum wage, and universal heath care, but support tax cuts for the rich. This is because many ultraconservatives tend to be part of big businesses, or large corporations. In order to save money and get richer, the corporations want the minimum wage stays low, and they do not want to pay more money to ensure that all of their employees have full healthcare benefits. Since the corporations are making more money, they now want to hold on to it. Once they are richer, they do not want their taxes getting raised. Typically ultraconservatives are very religious Christians. Due to their fervent religious beliefs, ultraconservatives often overlap their strong religious beliefs with their political ones. For example ultraconservatives are almost always opposed to same sex marriages. This is because the Christian doctrine states that homosexuality is a sin. Some examples of ultraconservatives include politicians such as George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and John McCain. Ultraliberals are part of the Democratic Party. They support raising the minimum wage, and universal healthcare. They also support more tax brackets with higher pay percentages in the brackets designated for the rich. This is because many ultraliberals tend to be poorer, and part of the working class. Ultraliberals want everyone to have...
pages: 3 (words: 655)
comments: 0
added: 01/11/2012
Beyond the shared enthusiasm of the Fuehrer and all US presidents (with the possible exception of Warren Harding) for mass murder as an appropriate expression of national policy, I've never seen any particularly close affinity between Adolf Hitler and the current White House incumbent but the Republican National Committee seems peculiarly sensitive on the matter. At the end of the first week in January the RNC lashed out furiously at a Democratic website Move0n.org for including in its featured entrants for robust campaign ads for 2004 a couple that offered Bush/Hitler comparisons. One features Hitler making a speech, cross cut with footage of the Nazi blitzkrieg, while a voiceover says "A nation warped by lies lies fuel fear fear fuels aggression invasion occupation." As the scene fades from Hitler giving a raised arm salute to Bush with his hand raised at his inauguration, the voice-over says, "What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003." The second ad shows Hitler, speaking in German, with a voiceover translating the lines as "We have taken new measures to protect our homeland, I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Then, as Hitler continues to speak, the voiceover says, "God told me to strike Al-Qaeda, and I struck him." The visage of A. Hitler becomes that of G. Bush and the voiceover continues, "and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." "Sound familiar?" the voiceover sinisterly proclaims. As a way of enticing undecided voters to vote against George Bush next November, both ads seem a trifle heavy-handed, which is probably why MoveOn.org's audience didn't include them in the 15 finalists. But this didn't stop the RNC screaming. Somewhat cravenly, MoveOn's Eli Pariser then said his group "regrets" the brief appearance of the two ads on...
pages: 4 (words: 1084)
comments: 0
added: 12/22/2011
Is this sick or what? November 3rd 2000 over 100 million American voters took to the polls unaware that their votes wouldn't matter. Al Gore won the popular vote and George W. Bush won the electoral vote; or did he? Something was not right in the state of Florida. The contest to become the 43rd President of the United States became a Supreme Court dispute over the way we vote. The guy who got the most votes in the U.S. and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice (George W. Bush) that won the all-important 5-4 Supreme Court vote (2). How could this happen and was it fair? How does America's subsequent choice become president? For one to fully understand what occurred last November and December you must know how the Electoral College works. Under the Electoral College system, American voters do not elect the president directly. Citizen's votes help elected state officials decide which nominee receives their state's electoral votes. 100 senators, 435 representatives and 3 votes awarded to the District of Columbia make up all 538 electoral votes. Our 535 elected officials are, in theory, supposed to reflect the ideas of their constituents. Unfortunately there is not a law that calls for electors to vote according to their state's popular vote. The 2000 election is an example of how it is possible for a candidate to win the nation-wide popular vote and not the win the presidency. According to cnn.com Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,456,169 ballots and George W. Bush only received 50,996,116(1). Al Gore won a lot of states by a landslide victory but all those popular votes add up to however many electoral votes a state had. George W. Bush, on the other hand, barely won some...
pages: 5 (words: 1237)
comments: 0
added: 12/08/2011
The debate over China's human rights violation has been an ongoing issue in the international communities for the past decade. One way to show the international community's disapproval of the human rights violations in China that comes to mind would be to prevent it from joining international organizations, such as the World Health Organization. However, due to the nature and role of the World Health Organization, and the nature of Chinese politics, government, and social atmosphere, I strongly recommend China's acceptance to the World Health Organization, despite the country's supposed human rights violations. The following support my argument. First, the situation of human rights in China needs to be examined. According to the US Department of State, The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the paramount source of power. At the national and regional levels, party members hold almost all top government, police, and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with members of the Politburo. Leaders stress the need to maintain stability and social order and are committed to perpetuating the rule of the CCP and its hierarchy. Citizens lack the freedom to express peacefully opposition to the party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government. This view is shared by most western nations and many other countries throughout the world. Even assuming this view to be completely factual and accurate still does not justify a refusal to admit China into the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization is a special agency of the United Nations with a goal of improving the level of health of all people worldwide. It was established for the benefit of humans around the world, regardless of their governments. According to its constitution, it is "the directing and coordinating...
pages: 3 (words: 784)
comments: 0
added: 04/30/2011
INTRODUCTION It is widely accepted that George Bush Snr. was forced to play out his presidency in the mighty shadow of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's charm and personality was one of his greatest strengths and, even now, is widely revered for his time as President. Bush was reportedly always conscious of people's expectations of him in view of his predecessor and this burden seemed to weigh heavily. Reagan's achievements in Washington were considerable if not in number than in impact. His political and strategic skills were impressive and Bush cannot be said to have equaled his achievements certainly at home, and this is borne out by Bush's failure to win re-election. Nevertheless Bush made some staggeringly important contributions to the international arena and is deeply respected for his part in world events where there is every reason to suspect that Reagan would not have been. The huge differences between the two are even more interesting given that Bush was a dutiful Vice President to Reagan for eight years and sought on gaining office only to take over where he left off. Bush did not set out to ring the changes between Reagan and himself; quite the opposite. He purported to be the archetypal guardian president; consolidating Reagan's good work and continuing to steer America on the same path. So why then did they turn out to be such almost polar opposites? This essay explores the realms of domestic politics, vision and leadership and international issues with the focus on drawing comparison between the two men and their styles of leadership and analysing in each instance who may have been the more effective president. I will conclude that, regardless of actual achievements real success in presidential terms depends on successful handling of the media, an area Reagan understood and Bush never would. IMAGE, PERSONALITY, AND MEDIA RELATIONS It...
pages: 12 (words: 3052)
comments: 0
added: 11/28/2011
"The only way to beat the British Monarch is to refuse its existence and believe that the Irish Republic is real and alive. Now, if I die, who will take my place?" These powerful words were said by an Irish martyr, Michael Collins, who's unyielding determination as a Nationalist and a Catholic served as inspiration to continue in the struggle that the province of Northern Ireland is still engaged in today. But, from where did this all originate, what steps have been taken towards peace and why is Northern Ireland so reluctant to be ruled by England? The history of the troubles that haunt Northern Ireland are not due to any one particular incident but rather a series of incidents beginning back when the island of Ireland was conquered by the Anglo-Normans troops in the late 12th century. English rulers then tried to colonize the island by any means possible, making enemies out of the Irish. Throughout history England has ruled Ireland. A drastic change took place in 1921, when the country was divided. Northern Ireland remained part of the UK, while the remainder of the country became the Republic of Ireland. The English progressed into Ulster Country with hopes of colonizing it. However, a clash of cultures erupted due to the animosity that Ireland, as a whole wanted to be the Republic of Ireland. The Irish Republic Army fought in hopes of driving the Protestant British out of Catholic Ireland and they only secured 26 out of 32 counties. The desire to drive the British out inspired rebellion on the behalf of the Irish Catholics. They were the domination of Ireland, and now being discriminated against on their own land. They were punished and taxed due to their behavior. They wanted to keep their culture; sacred, their religion; majority and their...
pages: 8 (words: 2094)
comments: 0
added: 02/10/2013
Time For Reform? Considering The Failures of The Electoral College Description: This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral College, and posits possible alternative electoral processes which likely are more democratic. A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a person votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two individuals, the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors as there are Senate and House of Representative members for that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who receives the majority of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. All the votes are transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the next President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of Presidential selection is thought by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the product of a 200 year old debate over who should select the President and why. In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the principles of both Federalists and States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717). Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt Congress should select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788 the Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to allow people a say in who lead them, but was also to protect...
pages: 8 (words: 1981)
comments: 0
added: 03/29/2012
I. The Origins of NAFTA The underlying rationale not only of NAFTA, but of all free trade agreements is the belief that international trade is a win-win proposition. This belief is based on theories developed by theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who dismissed the mercantilist view that a country could only gain at the expense of its rival. In their view, mutual gains for all parties involved would be created if two conditions were met: 1. If each country specialized in producing and selling the goods that it could produce most efficiently relative to another country (= law of comparative advantage) and 2. If there were a free and unregulated flow of goods among and between countries. Though the belief in the economic and moral rightness of free trade became a national dogma in Britain in 1846, it took a while for the free trade fever to hit the Americas, where the governing class held long and hard to protectionism and where Alexander Hamilton's Infant Industry Argument raised in 1792 was still very popular. This trend finally climaxed in the infamous Smoot Hawley Act of 1930, which raised U.S. tariff rates by almost 50 % between 1930 and 1932. What followed was the great depression of the 1930´s with astronomic unemployment rates, deteriorating living standards and a total collapse of international trade. As a result, the world economy was reassessed and restructured after it was found that trade barriers had contributed a great deal to causing the problems. Hence, a new trend towards free trade emerged and, finally, the necessary steps to secure free trade were taken: First, the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Then, in 1946, the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) was created at the first...
pages: 15 (words: 4034)
comments: 0
added: 12/08/2011
Page 1 of 4
1