only the heart :: essays research papers

And only the prisoner knows The dream of freedom on his tongue, Sweet foretaste of the summer wind, That blows Across the waving green of the young rice, Across the unchained current of the distant dream, Between the singing strands of taut-stretched barrier-wire, To speak the future freely In guarded whispers Only the prisoner knows these things Only the Heart is a collection of memories, thoughts and feelings both in the past and present, this novel portrays the hardships and struggles that a Vietnamese family endures through the years of approaching communism. Their desperate flea from the only home they have ever known and the loved ones that they may never see again, all in search of a place where freedom and hope are as abundant as the air that you breathe. The life that teens our age go through for freedom, opinions, safety, choices, a future and a new beginning. These are the things we take for granted. This sad but inspiring story written by Brian Caswell and David Phu An Chiem captures every terrifying moment of war, from the time families are torn apart to the refugee camps. Set in Southern Vietnam in the 1970s during the war between Vietnam and America, this book is the truth that was once felt by thousands of Vietnamese families. Imagine one day you wake up and the currency changes, any money you have will turn into only 200 Dong. No money from the old currency is to be accepted. Your parents start packing the valuables that you own. They tell you to quickly get change. The whole house is a mess; the adults are running around like crazy with half open bags. And the next thing you know, you are pushed onto a wooden boat escaping from the war, from Vietnam, from the only home you have ever known. The purpose of this story was to show how meaningless war is and the things it does to people and their families. Some of the effective aspects of this book include the format in which it was written.

Is Parliamentarism Conducive to Better Political Outcomes Than Presidential Systems? Essay

Is Parliamentarism conducive to better political outcomes than Presidential systems? My interpretation of the question leads me to believe if parliamentary systems are better than presidential systems in deriving better political outcomes. By better political outcomes this implies not only ease of making political decisions but also the manner in which the two systems function and which is better, and whether or not this leads to favourable political outcomes. Issues that I am going to discuss in this essay are going to include the functionality of both systems, the differences between the two systems and whether or not the system provides and facilitates good political outcomes. According to Bagehot â€Å"a Presidential system endows the incumbent with both the ceremonial functions of a head of state and the effective functions of a chief executive.†(Bagehot) In a Presidential system the executive branch exists and resides outside of the legislature. The executive branch does not purpose legislature but have the power to veto them. â€Å"The president has a fixed term in government and it is usually a difficult process trying to eliminate the president.†(Verney) The executive branch controls their cabinet and does not members of the cabinet serve at their will, this means the President can hire or fire anyone from the cabinet. According to Verney â€Å"Parliamentary system, consists of the head of government that are dependent on the confidence of the legislature and can be dismissed by a legislative vote of no confidence.†(Verney) There are two main types of parliamentary democracy which consist of the ‘Westminster system’ and the ‘Consensus system’ but there is also a hybrid of the presidential and parliamentary system which is called the semi-presidential system. The Westminster system derives from the UK and can be found in many of Britain’s ex-colonies such as India and Canada. The Westminster system tends to be a more adversarial style of debating. The consensus system can be found in Germany and Spain and tends to be more consensus style of debating system. Firstly, legislation is always a key factor to answering the question as to which of the following systems is conducive to better political outcomes. Linz argues that â€Å"in a Presidential system both Legislature and the executive can claim legitimacy since both drive their power from the votes of the people in free competition among well-defined alternatives, a conflict is always possible.†(Linz)This occurs because a Presidential system adopts the separation of powers format. Presidential systems usually but not exclusively reside in Federal countries. This allows for a separation of powers between the legislature and executive. This separation can be looked at in different forms, some advantageous and hinders to political outcomes. For example an advantage of having the separation of powers in the Presidential system is that it does not create a dictatorship type of government. The separation of powers means that in the Presidential system the executive as well as the legi slature are can both claim legitimacy, which in turn means that they can both cancel each other out. Presidents cannot impose laws and legislature cannot interfere with presidential powers. In the United States there is a supreme court that decides whether or not the legislature or the President are acting unconstitutional and thus act as a referee in the debating between the two factions of government. The presidential system is seen to be more democratic because of the conflict between the two factions of government. The congress in the US represent the different views of the people in different states and the president represents the US as a whole thus a conflict between the two bodies shows a more democratic process. The Presidential system also has fixed term elections, this is a key argument used by pro-presidential academics, and Horowitz argues that fixed term elections leads to better democratic outcomes. The reason for this thinking is because, â€Å"Fixed terms does not produce winner takes all outcomes as there is conflict between legislature and executive.†(Horowitz) A fixed term also links into the previous mentioned point about reducing the chances of an elective dictatorship as there would eventually have to be a set date for an election and thus if either the executive or the legislature has proven to be unpopular they would get voted out of office. However there are disadvantages to the presidential system in terms of fixed terms and conflicts with legislature. One key disadvantage is that the conflict between the president and the legislature produce political gridlock within the system, â€Å"the separation of powers of a presidential system frequently creates undesirable and long-term political gridlock and political instability whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties.†(Linz) Linz â€Å"argues that this inherent political instability can cause democracies to fail, as seen in such cases as Brazil and Chile.†Linz believed that political gridlock can prove to be costly in the forging of governments because it hinders the speed and decisiveness of democracy and thus cause democracies to fail like he mentioned in South America. Also a separation of powers in the presidential system leads both the president and the legislature to become less accountable. Both the executive and the legislature can shift blame upon each other and thus leads to less accountability come election time to the vote rs. Parliamentary systems on the other hand have their government intertwined with the legislature and government is formed form the legislature. In the UK, the Westminster model forms government form the winning party in parliament. So in a parliamentary system there is no separation of powers. The advantages of this are that it reduces the likeliness of political gridlock. Linz argues that â€Å"Parliamentarism imparts flexibility to the political process, presidential makes it rigid.†(Linz). As the government would expect to have backing from their party they have the ability to pass through legislations quicker with less hassle than a presidential system may incur. This is an advantage over the presidential system the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. In this form it can be said that Parliamentarism is conductive to better political outcomes than the presidential system. The passing of legislature is an important task for any government as it shows strength and can make or break a government’s reputation. In respect to this I feel that the presidential system may be lacking in terms of being able to pass legislation as it may not be able to react quick enough to changing events or situations, this is where a parliamentary system seems to be more adequate, however a parliamentary system could become gridlocked if there is a minority government with low discipline so the element f political gridlock is not only exclusive to Presidential systems. However the issue of legitimacy in the Presidential systems has the ability to cause numerous problems in the terms of legislation passing. But it can also be argued in the case for support of the Presidential system it can be argued that Prime ministers are constrained to the need of The House of Commons and thus do not act as fast as expected. An example of this is taken from John F. Kennedy work where he states, â€Å"Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the Commons.†(Kenned y) In the need for confronting German military build up before the outbreak of the Second World War. Another issue to contend with is how the governments are elected. In a Parliamentary system, the government is elected through the party system and thus the winning party forms government through having a simple majority in the parliament. In the presidential system, the executive is elected by the public and is directly elected. This difference between the two systems is seen in both an advantage and disadvantages. In a presidential system Voters know who they are voting for and accountability resides within the President. Horowitz states â€Å"Voters have a clear choice of Ideology to pick from.†(Horowitz) This means that there is no only the one straight choice and thus it is clear to voters who they are picking and what type of ideology this is going to represent. However a disadvantage of this is that direct election creates a zero-sum game. This is that there is only one winner and all other votes do not amount to anything and thus no coalition can be made with the oppos ition. This is seen has undemocratic and a hindrance to better political outcomes. An example of this is seen with the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000, where Bush won the election by 271 to 266. In such a close competition, where arguably almost half of the country voted against him. It seems undemocratic to have Bush becoming the President; this can lead to the polarisation of politics within that country. This is because when a president wins an election he is the head of state as well as the representative of a nation but he stands for a clearly partisan political option. But Presidential system has one up on its parliamentary counterpart as the â€Å"voters know and are in control of who they are voting for to be president, while in a parliamentary system voters vote for their constituent MP and the party decides who is Prime minister,† (Riggs) this can be seen as hindering democracy and could not be conductive to better political outcomes. However the Parliamentary system can be an advantage because it leads to power sharing and coalitions, thus it is argued makes politics more representative. An example of this is mentioned by Lijphart, â€Å"Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divid ed. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to classical parliamentarianism.†(Lijphart) However it can be argued that a parliamentary form of government leads to the personalisation of power by the prime minister or an ethnic group in the country. As there is no fixed terms is in the Parliamentary style of government it is argued that if a prime minister was to get voted in with a large majority, with the whip system in place, where all party members will obey the party line the government is capable of introducing any legislature, without any issue. This can be seen as being undemocratic as it would lead to an elected dictatorship. This was the case in Nigeria during the 1960s, â€Å"Under the Westminster model, during the 1960s, groups in the North managed to secure a majority in Parliament and began to seize power and excluded everyone else from power. This lead to an ethnic authoritarian rule of the country, and was the main factor for the Nigerian Biafrican War and countless military coups.†(Horowitz) This shows that Parliamentarism is just as harmful as presidential system in stifling democracy. Horowitz makes the comment â€Å"It is possible that Presidential systems helped stifle democracy in Latin America, Parliamentary systems have helped stifle democracy in Africa.†(Horowitz) To conclude, the Presidential system has its advantages to conducive a better political outcome, such as having fixed terms, direct elections and separations of power however these advantages can also act as disadvantages when viewed in another way. The parliamentary system too has its advantages to creating a better political outcomes, its advantages such as likeliness of coalition, being supposedly more representative and being more responsive in creating a stronger government also can be seen as a disadvantage when looked at in a different light. Dahl states â€Å"claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns.† This in effect argues the point that parliamentary systems have been more successful in terms of having peaceful transition from colonialism to democracy but although presidential system may not have had a successful transition to democracy but parliamentary system has not had a 100% success rate and thus we cannot say for definite if it is better than presidential system we can only assume. My research in this essay has led me to believe that the both system are conducive to better political outcomes in their own way, theoretically they are both capable of producing democratically stable countries and environments with better political outcomes, however in practice this is not always the case and thus I feel that my research has led me to be inconclusive and i have to sit on the fence when trying to realise which one cre ates a better system. Bibliography Bagehot W, (1867) The English Constitution, MacMaster University Dahl, R (1989) Democracy and Its Critics- – Yale University Press Horowitz, Donald L. (1990) Comparing Democratic Systems- The Johns Hopkins University Press Kennedy. John F. (1940)- Why England Slept?, Macmillan Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Linz, Juan J. The Perils of Presidentialism – The Johns Hopkins University Press Riggs, Fred. (1988) The Survival of Presidentialism in America International Political Science Review Verney

Characteristics of Strong Civilizations

Many strong civilizations share common characteristics of being successful but which one is the most important? You can have a strong education system like the Han Dynasty and have educated people building advanced technology. You can have a strong military like the Romans and conquer thousands of miles in land to claim as your own. But the best characteristic to have is strong leadership because they can unite a country and stuff like that. They can lead revolutions and uprisings. And they can lead strong militaries. One reason strong leadership is important is because they can unite a country, colony, empire etc.Ben Franklin John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others took an angry 13 colonies and united them as one as they declared independence from England. This made them successful because they united the colonies and eventually defeated England in the Revolutionary War to officially become independent. (Textbook, 559) Also, to unite the Incas the all powerful Sapa Inca united them by imposing their language and religion upon those they captured while also building a large road system. This made them successful because the roads allowed armies and news to move rapidly throughout the empire. (Textbook, 197)Another reason why strong leadership is most important is because they can lead revolutions and uprisings. In 1791 slaves in the French colony Saint Domingue revolted against their slave owners. They were lead by Toussaint L’Overture and this became known as the Haitian Revolution. This made them successful because they overthrew their white slave owners and created the first black republic. (Latin American Revolutions Packet) One famous revolutionary leader is George Washington. George took many unskilled farmers and made them soldiers in a surprising victory over the stronger British army.This made them successful because it was the last compromise to England and finally declared the 13 colonies free from England and created the new country the Unit ed States of America. (Textbook, 559-562) The last reason strong leadership is most important is because they can lead militaries. Before Julius Caesar was the Emperor of the Roman Empire he was once a strong military leader that one many battles and wars. This made them successful because they conquered many miles of land and made the Empire more powerful. (Textbook, 158) Also, Genghis Kahn of the Mongol Empire was a uthless military leader who had highly trained armies. He imposed strict military discipline and absolute loyalty. This made them successful because Mongol forces conquered a huge empire that stretched from the Pacific Ocean to Eastern Europe. So as you can see, strong leadership is the best trait a powerful empire can have because they can unite the people, they can lead revolutions, and lead militaries. Examples like Julius Caesar and Genghis Kahn are always mentioned whenever strong leaders are brought up for the many successful things they accomplished. Which trait do you think is the best characteristic?

When Average People Experience Hard Times

When Average People Experience Hard Times Free Online Research Papers Winston Churchill once said, â€Å"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.† Now Churchill would enjoy the following three stories of average men going through tragic accidents and hard times. The three stories are: â€Å"Willing to Pay the Price†, â€Å"Yes, You Can†, and â€Å"The Cowboy’s Story†. These stories prove that people have come out on top in extraordinary circumstances. They faced the odds and never gave up hope. One man went through two tragic accidents which left him in a wheel chair and his body sixty-five percent burned. Another is a country man who moved to a city and became stuck in a dead end job. The final story is about a man who fights for his freedom. â€Å"Willing to Pay the Price† is a great story that anyone could learn from. Le Van Vu always found a way to prosper. He played important roles in whatever he was doing. He found a way to escape from prison. Le even killed five men to return home after being captured by the North. Le and his wife made it through all of their problems together. After all that has happened to him Le still never gave up. â€Å"Yes, You Can† is a good short story. The man was in a motorcycle accident which burned sixty-five percent of his body. Shortly after he was in a plane accident and was paralyzed from the waist down. After all of that, he still became a well respected citizen. He never let his disabilities put him down. Mitchell still lived his life to the fullest. It seemed nothing could hold him down. â€Å"The Cowboy’s Story† Is a compelling story. The cowboy changed his goals that he made. The cowboy made his biggest dreams into reality. He kept a positive attitude and went far in the business world. The cowboy ended up owning half of the company he worked for. The theme was inspiring. It shows that anyone can do what they set their mind to. These men lived their whole life finding opportunities in difficult times, just as Churchill said. Many people go through rough times, but try walking a mile in their shoes. These were stories of getting what was wanted; stories of not letting disabilities get the best of you. There are even stories of just not letting people put you down. These are all tales of people who overcome the odds and proved everyone wrong. They didn’t care what people thought, they just did what they believed. Everyone could learn a valuable lesson from these people. That lesson is do not let anything hold you back. Research Papers on When Average People Experience Hard TimesMind TravelThe Masque of the Red Death Room meaningsHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows EssayThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationWhere Wild and West Meet19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraHip-Hop is ArtCapital PunishmentThe Hockey GameStandardized Testing

The Growth of Democracy Essays

The Growth of Democracy Essays The Growth of Democracy Essay The Growth of Democracy Essay In 1850, Britain was an undemocratic country. At this time the electoral system divided Boroughs and Counties. Voting qualifications were different in boroughs and constituencies. The vote was only given to men over the age of 21 providing their property was valued at 10 or more, or land was more than 2 per year in rent. Seats were distributed unequally and traditional ruling families usually formed the Cabinet. Furthermore, bribery and corruption were widespread and only the minority of the population were entitled to vote. At this time there was no form of a basic education for the population masses and there was still a lot of power lying within the House Of Lords and not with elected officials. A certain degree of money was necessary to stand for election because this was not a paying job, which, as a result stopped vast numbers of people standing for election because the did not have the finances to support themselves. Nor were they able to afford to stand for election as due t o bribery and corruption, the poor stood no chance of winning as they did not have the money to provide voters with what they wanted in return for their support. For democracy, there needed to be regular elections and although at this time elections were every seven years, this was not often enough. However between 1850 and 1918, progress was made towards Britain becoming a democracy. Now there was better communication and education increasing political interest and this influenced people in trade, industry and finance. Economic changes made people better off and left them wanting to take part in politics, and be represented in parliament. This general desire for the widening of the franchise led to pressure groups forming in 1864. The Extension of the Franchise was helped by the Second Reform Bill passed in 1867. In this act, all householders who paid rates with 12 months residence and all 10 a year lodgers with one years resid

How Many Years a President Can Serve

How Many Years a President Can Serve U.S. presidents are limited to serving two elected four-year terms in the White House and as many as two years of another presidents term. That means the longest any president could serve is 10 years, though no one has been in the White House that long since Congress passed the constitutional amendment on term limits. How many years a president can serve in the White House is spelled out in the 22nd amendment  to the  U.S. Constitution, which states no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. However, if an individual becomes president through the  order of succession they are allowed to serve an additional two years. Why Limited to 2 Terms The amendment defining limits on how many terms can a president serve was approved by Congress on March 21, 1947, during the administration of President Harry S. Truman. It was ratified by the states on Feb. 27, 1951. Before the 22nd Amendment, the Constitution did not limit the number of presidential terms to two, though many early presidents including George Washington imposed such a limit on themselves. Many argue that the 22nd Amendment merely put on paper the unwritten tradition held by presidents of retiring after two terms. Before the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to four terms in the White House in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Roosevelt died less than a year into his fourth term, but he is the only president to have served more than two terms. Congressional Republicans proposed the 22nd Amendment in response to Roosevelts four election victories. Historians have written that the party felt such a move was the best way to invalidate and discredit the popular progressives legacy. Defined In 22nd Amendment The relevant section of the 22nd Amendment defining presidential terms  reads: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. American presidents are elected for four-year terms. While the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two full terms in office, it also allows them to serve two years at most of another presidents term. That means the most any president can serve in the White House is 10 years. History The framers of the Constitution originally considered a lifetime appointment by Congress for the president. When this proposal failed, they discussed whether the president should be elected by either the Congress, the people, or something in between, such as the Electoral College (which was eventually chosen) and whether term limits should be imposed. The idea of an appointment by Congress, with the option for re-appointment, failed on the fear that a president could make an underhanded deal with Congress to get re-appointed. Cant Serve a 3rd Term Conspiracy theorists have through the years perpetuated the notion that power-hungry presidents try to find ways to win a third election. A few people even point to the wording of the 22nd Amendment, noting that it says no person shall be eligible to be elected to the office more than twice. Would this disqualify a former president from being elected vice president, then serving as president if the president died or resigned? Its unlikely any former president would run for the lower office of vice president to test the theory. Over the years, several lawmakers have proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment. Congressional opponents of the 22nd Amendment argue that it restricts voters from exercising their will. As Democratic U.S. Rep. John McCormack of Massachusetts proclaimed during a debate over the proposal: The framers of the Constitution considered the question and did not think they should tie the hands of future generations. I dont think we should. Although Thomas Jefferson favored only two terms, he specifically recognized the fact that situations could arise where a longer tenure would be necessary. One of the most high-profile opponents of the two-term limit for presidents was Republican President Ronald Reagan, who was elected to and served two terms in office. In a 1986 interview with The Washington Post, Reagan lamented the lack of focus on important issues and lame-duck presidents. I have come to the conclusion that the 22nd Amendment was a mistake, Reagan said. Shouldnt the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him? They send senators up there for 30 or 40 years, congressmen the same. Sources Buckley, F.H. and Metzer, Gillian. â€Å"The 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.†Ã‚  National Constitution CenterCannon, Lou. â€Å"Short-Sighted Amendment.†Ã‚  The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 June 1986

The advent of new technologies that can treat hearing loss will Essay

The advent of new technologies that can treat hearing loss will ultimately eradicate Deaf culture - Essay Example tanding of speech thereby leading to decline in the perception of deafness as a culture and enhancing the possibility of the eventual eradication of deaf culture in the near future. This is particularly evidenced by current drastically reducing cases of deafness and enrollment in sign language schools. One of the major reasons why deaf culture is currently at risk of eradication by the introduction of new technologies that treat hearing loss is that a number of the deaf people are born of parents who are not deaf. Such parents have in certain situations shown excitement about the advancement in technology as witnessed in the cochlear implants. In most cases, the parents have the belief that the adoption of the implantations is a way to integrate the deaf into the hearing world. Often times, the parents realize the hearing impairments whilst the child is around 2 years, and this finds when they have started developing stronger emotional bonds plus a caring relationship with the child. Consequently, the parent of the deaf child will be fast in soliciting for help from the relevant professionals upon realizing the deaf state. A parent who resorts to cochlear implants then succeeds in integrating his child into the hearing community might lure other parents and this will in the end er adicate the deaf culture. On the other hand, since deafness and loss of hearing are the main criterion for membership into a deaf culture, the eradication of deafness will ultimately erode the culture of deafness of its members thereby ultimately leading to its eventual eradication. This is particularly because it is everyone’s wish to transform individuals from the deaf community to make them form part of the hearing population. If the deaf are made to go through such a transformation, they are less likely to uphold the practices that pertain to the deaf culture, and such a situation is likely to render the deaf culture eroded. In addition, some professionals have attributed their