More Perfect Union Speech Essay Example for Free

More Perfect Union Speech Essay In President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign speech, the resentments of each subgroup spoken about are valid. Not everyone within the African-American community feels as strongly as he does about the resentments but majority do from what I’ve seen. There are many instances where one can say that because blacks and other minorities don’t get as many opportunities as those in the white community, their resentment continues to grow. Many African Americans also think that because so much has happened within the community due to what their ancestors dealt with, it sheds a negative light on them. I agree with what the President says about how even though the subgroups haven anger and resentments, they are usually expressed in small groups. Almost never are they spoken about publicly. I think his statement about the anger and resentments being counterproductive are very true. Racial tension does nothing but set our communities, and country as a whole, a step back. In my opinion, the only good aspect of voicing the anger and resentments everyone has against each other is that they become known publicly and are no longer secrets. By having anger towards blacks, whites, and any other group you are just widening the gap to equality. Jandt (2010) explained how knowing another’s cultural identity helps one understand the opportunities and challenges that each individual deals with. This is exactly why we must come together in unity. President Obama quotes William Faulkner saying, â€Å"the past isn’t dead and buried; in fact, it isn’t even past† (Obama, 2008, para. 27). I believe this statement is saying that the past doesn’t necessarily die; it becomes a part of us and makes us who we are today. This â€Å"past† is like a reoccurring thing like with racism, it is seen continuously throughout the centuries. And when it’s not seen or heard it is waiting for the right time to show itself once again. It is a never ending cycle. I do believe a trans-racial society is possible, but like President Obama said it will take time and effort to achieve it. It is desired by more Americans than it was before. President Obama believed that â€Å"working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds†¦we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union† (Obama, 2008, para 38). Because our country is becoming more and more diverse we have to adjust and accept all of the various cultures and ethnicities in order to succeed as a society. We would have to start by initiating the equal opportunity rules stated in the constitution rather than just speak about what should be done. Boundaries that have been created should be broken involving race, social groups, and sex so that communication between the people isn’t filtered through physicality or stereotypes. Without working on communication between the people first societal change will continue to progress as slow as it has been.

Class difference in Blood Brothers Essay -- English Literature

How does Willy Russell demonstrate class difference in Blood Brothers? "Blood Brothers" was written by Willy Russell in 1985. A Liverpudlian West Side Story: twin brothers are separated at birth because their mother cannot afford to keep them both. She gives one of them away to wealthy Mrs Lyons and they grow up as friends in ignorance of their blood relationship until the inevitable quarrel caused through 'class' differences leads to the tragic outcome. In this essay, I will examine how Willy Russell demonstrates class differences in his play 'Blood Brothers.' I will be looking at the differences between Mrs Lyons and Mrs Johnson. The differences between Eddie and Mickey as young children at the age of seven. The different police attitudes towards Eddie and Mickey. Also Mickey as a worker and Eddie as a student at university, and the impact, class difference has on the end of the play. Mrs Lyons and Mrs Johnson have many social differences. Mrs Lyons has a comfortable home, and lifestyle - the Lyons can offer Eddie a better life that Mrs Johnson, "If my child was raised in a place like this one, he wouldn't have to worry about where his next meal is coming from." They have a settled, sheltered lifestyle and security for the future. Mrs Lyons is over-protective and controlling, "I've told you never to go where that boy-where boys like that live." Edward has little freedom when young, and grows up with little knowledge of the 'real' world "because, because you're not the same as him. You're not, do you understand?" Mrs Johnson however doesn't have any of this security- she lets Mickey spend much of his time out on the streets unsupervised. She doesn't have a comfortable home and has a world of uncert... ...e easy life, because one family had more money than the other. Eddie got to be a councillor and Mickey a redundant worker. In conclusion, Willy Russell demonstrates class difference through out his play by using two equal boys and putting them in different house holds. Their lives change dramatically because of their class, each of them are treated differently just because of wealth and status. Mickey and Edward's lives are partly ruled by fate, they have little power to change their lives, and their characters are trapped by social circumstances. The final comment is telling- "And do we blame superstition for what came to pass? Or could it be what we, the English, have come to know as class?" This forces the viewer think about social class and the effect it has on our lives and whether we should allow class differences to effect our treatment of others.

Human rights legislation Essay

The issue of implementing a widely accepted Human Rights policy has become a serious hurdle in recent years for many non Western nations like China Iran and Africa. Over the past couple of decades many nations in Asia Africa and the middle East have found themselves embroiled in human rights violation controversies and have been at the receiving end of Western based criticism for these policies. (D. Bell 1996), Some have often faced severe financial penalties and boycotts from the Western world which has effected their economic development these controversies have given birth to a new philosophical debate on Universalist stance on human rights versus the relativist stance. The debate centres on the precept of whether the western based human right theories can be implemented in culturally diverse nations at a universal level. The Universalist theory of Human Rights is predominantly derived from Western philosophy and places tremendous importance on the rights of an individual. This theory has its roots in Greek philosophy, principles of Christianity and the philosophical musings of European Enlightenment thinkers. (D. Bell 1999), The universalist approach to Human Rights propagates that certain basic human rights are inherent to safeguard the existence of every human and can be identified by using either religion nature or reason This theory holds the percept that all individuals should be granted certain rights by the very virtue of their humanity and that these rights cannot be conditioned by gender or national or ethnic origin. (Donnelly 1999) The Universalist theory also propagates that these rights exist universally across all diversities of culture race and religion and can not be subordinated to another person or an institution ( Cultural relativism on the other hand is based on the notion that there should not be the prevalence of an adherence to specific objective standards by which a person or a nation be judged. The debate between universalism and relativism was an old one but its extension to the realm of cultural relativism is comparatively new and was influenced by the work of cultural anthropologists who demonstrated that all different cultures are equally worthy and exercise their own views regarding the rights of an individual.. Theories propagating culture relativism holds the view that there is no universal meaning to a moral value and that these values are influenced by culture. The theories also establish that there are profound differences between western legal theories and cultures and those of Africa, Asia, India and Islam. (E. Charney 1999 ) Theoretically speaking, the debate between universalism and culture fluctuates on a spectrum varying from radical aspects of universalism that propagates strict adherence to certain standards and radical aspects of relativism which holds culture to be the sole source of judging the validity of a moral value. This debate first came to the limelight in the arena of world politics in 1993 during a UN Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna. It was in this conference that a delegation led by China, Syria and Iran officially challenged the universality of Human Rights. These countries put forward some essential causes for their discontentment with the prevailing practice of adopting universality to Human Rights. This included the central percept that universal theories of Human Rights were not universal at all in their scope and were based on concepts and theories of Western morality. (T. Franck 2001 pg 91), They argued further that these human rights theories should not therefore be imposed as norms on non-western societies in disregard of those societies’ historical and economic development and in disregard of their cultural differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong. Furthermore they held that such imposition of ones own understanding and cultural interpretation of human rights on another culture without understanding the values of that culture is entirely unjust and reflects an imperialist attitude. The debate between these two perspectives examines the inherent strengths and weaknesses of both stances towards human rights. However when looking at the merits and de-merits of these two approaches it is essential to stay away from a philosophical discussion of the intrinsic value of each perspective and focus on the practical translation of these two stances and how each of them are used in modern day practice. The greatest strength of universalism is that it institutes a fundamental system of rights that guarantees the protection of individual’s basic freedoms from any government policies that might seek to constrain this to propagate their own doctrines. Most of the formal legislation on human rights propagates the existence of â€Å"negative† rights which seek to limit the interference of government in the lives of individuals and guarantee that an individual has certain basic freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon. Commonly defined these include the freedom to maintain ones privacy, freedom to speak freely without ear of persecution, freedom to hold exercise religious beliefs , freedom to hold and subscribe to opinions that may be political in nature and finally the freedom to associate with anybody that the individual desires to. Any government policy which seeks to infringe on these beliefs can be deemed unconstitutional and can be revoked by law. (D. Bell 1999), Perhaps the biggest weakness of universalism is that it is rooted and stems from Western belief and practice and works best with political system that are fashioned on western models of democracy and capitalism. ( An-Na’im, 1991 pg 22) There is no disputing the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is tailored and customized by western nations. It included the representation of only four African nations (An Naim 2001 pg 88). The majority of the drafts of the declaration are written in English. In fact all the legislation on Human Rights including International Bill of Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights heavily derives their content from the work of European Enlightenment philosophers namely Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The belief that there are certain freedoms which the government cannot and shouldn’t interfere with underlies the political system of many modern western countries. It has been the underlying belief of the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights as well as the French Constitution. Since the majority of Human rights legislation shares affinity with the believes propagated in the founding principles of many western democracies many believe that there is a close interdependency between instituting universal human right concepts and maintaining Western models of democracy. (M. Winston 2000) This has lead to the widespread Western ethnocentrism when it comes to the application of Human rights principles in countries which harbour different systems of government based on different religious beliefs

Federal Deficit vs. National Debt

The federal deficit and the national debt  are both bad and getting worse, but what are they and how are they different? Key Terms Federal Budget Deficit: The difference between the federal government’s annual revenues and expendituresNational Debt: Total of all unpaid funds borrowed by the U.S. government The debate over whether the federal government should borrow money to extend unemployment benefits beyond the typical 26 weeks at a time when the number of jobless is high and public debt is growing rapidly shed light on terms that are easily confused among the public - the federal deficit and national debt. For example, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, said the policies put forth buy the White House including the jobless benefits extension in 2010 represent a job-killing economic agenda - focused on more borrowing, spending, and taxing - [that] will keep the unemployment rate high for years to come. The American people are fed up with Washingtons push to spend money we dont have, add to our crushing burden of debt, and evade accountability for the dismal results, Ryan said in a statement. The terms national debt and federal deficit are widely used by our politicians. But the two are not interchangeable. Heres a quick explanation of each. What is the Federal Deficit? The deficit is the difference between the money federal government takes in, called receipts, and what it spends, called outlays, each year. The federal government generates revenue through income, excise and social insurance taxes as well as fees, according to the U.S. Department of Treasurys Bureau of the Public Debt. The spending includes Social Security and Medicare benefits along with all other outlays such as medical research and interest payments on the debt. When the amount of spending exceeds the level of income, there is a deficit and the Treasury must borrow the money needed for the government to pay its bills. Think of it this way: Lets say you earned $50,000 in a year, but had $55,000 in bills. You would have a $5,000 deficit. You would need to borrow $5,000 to make up the difference. The U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2018 is $440 billion, according to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In January 2017, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that federal deficits would increase for the first time in nearly a decade. In fact, the CBO’s analysis showed the increase in the deficit will drive the total federal debt to â€Å"almost unprecedented levels.† While it projected the deficit to actually drop in 2017 and 2018, the CBO sees the deficit then increasing to at least $601 billion in 2019 thanks to rising Social Security and Medicare costs. How the Government Borrows The federal government borrows money by selling Treasury securities such as T-bills, notes, inflation-protected securities and savings bonds to the public. The government trust funds are required by law to invest surpluses in Treasury securities. What is the National Debt? The national debt is the total value of unpaid funds borrowed by the U.S. government.  The value of all Treasury securities issued to the public and to the government trust funds is considered that years deficit and becomes part of the larger, ongoing national debt. One way to think about the debt is as the governments accumulated deficits, the Bureau of the Public Debt suggests. The maximum sustainable deficit is said by economists to be 3 percent of gross domestic product. The Treasury Department keeps a running tab on the amount of debt held by the U.S. government. According to the U.S. Treasury, the total national debt stood at $20.245 trillion as September 30, 2018. Nearly all of that debt is subject to the statutory debt ceiling. However, under current law, the debt ceiling is suspended, allowing the government may to borrow as much as it wants through March 1, 2019. At that time, Congress will either have to raise the debt ceiling or suspend it again as it has in recent years While it is often claimed that â€Å"China owns our debt,† the Treasury Department reports that as of June 2017, China only held about 5.8% of the total U.S. debt, or about $1.15 trillion. The Impact of Both on the Economy As the debt continues to increase, creditors can become concerned about how the U.S. government plans to repay it, notes About.com Guide Kimberly Amadeo. Over time, she writes, creditors will expect higher interest payments to provide a greater return for their increased perceived risk. Higher interest costs can dampen economic growth, Amadeo notes. As a result, she notes, the U.S. government may be tempted to let the value of the dollar fall so that the debt repayment will be in cheaper dollars, and less expensive. Foreign governments and investors could, as a result, be less willing to buy Treasury bonds, forcing interest rates higher. Updated by Robert Longley