Research Topics: Bush Administration

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

How the ADA is being handle today and problems with implementing the ADA?             The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a comprehensive civil rights law that condemns the discrimination of people with disabilities based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. It was signed by President George H. W. Bush on July 26, 1990. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 impose negative sanctions for acts of discrimination against people with disabilities and promote alternative practices and consciousness.             At the time of the passage of the ADA, there are about 43 million Americans or 15 percent of the population was estimated to have a disability[1]. This legislative landmark for people with disabilities expanded the scope of the Rehabilitation Act beyond isolated pockets of federal authority to include public and private sectors fully[2]. With respect to employment, it built on the earlier statute’s Section 504 by including the mandate for private-sector employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for workers with disabilities[3]. Today, ADA greatly improved the welfare of people with severe disabilities. However, it was disapproved by some critics because of little progress in eliminating the discrimination instead it allows remedies which are complaint-driven under the law[4]. It is when individuals must make a complaint of discrimination to a person or agency charged with handling such complaints only after which the agency may take action. Furthermore, the ADA was judged as “over inclusive” in its scope[5]. There are some cases that the law is being utilized by some abusive individuals (such as malingerers and the so-called professional plaintiffs) that make it as a source of income. They sue organizations, business and companies and collect monetary damages. The ADA also presents a ferocious media counterattack upon its implementation. There are some episodes in The Simpsons that showed Homer as grossly obsessed in order to escape the mandatory workplace fitness program as a requirement in the company. There is also an article written in The Onion – a caricature newspaper published weekly in print and on the Internet that satirized ADA as “Americans with No Abilities”[6]. But with the implementation of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines, the said argument was fixed. There are numerous contradictions and debates with regards to the ADA. But the bottom line is the fact that the law was created for the welfare of the people with disabilities. It covers the fact that people with such disabilities are not completely and appallingly disabled. They are categorically identified with severe disabilities but they can still perform some jobs and functions necessary in practiced and performance of their duties in the workplace or environment where they belong. People agree that ADA should accommodate all people with disabilities but there are still some limitations. For instance, a person with physical disability such as paraplegia (both legs paralysis) should be accommodated. But a person with mental disorder such as schizophrenia and mood disorder is a big question. Hence, there are still significant numbers of people believed that the accommodation of this law put too many restrictions instead of offering boundless opportunity to its intended recipients[7]. Additionally, the underlying philosophy of the liberal welfare state is fundamental to the independent living movement (ILM), which calls for tax-supported services that include personal assistants, medical insurance (which now covers provision and maintenance of electric wheelchairs, respirators, and other adaptive equipment), and entitlements (income supplements) to guarantee a basic standard of living especially to the people with disabilities. The ILM tends to be allied with left-liberal politics. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, conservatives have been responsive to arguments favoring the disabled that also emphasize self-sufficiency, breaking down barriers to employment so that disabled people can earn their own living in the private sector. Such arguments were the basis for the endorsement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by the conservative Bush administration.[8] Personally, I view the ADA as a positive reinforcement to people with disabilities. It recognizes the vital contributions that they can give, in any aspect for that matter such as mental and moral, for the growth and progress of the company, field or opportunity they are affiliated and most especially to themselves. The ADA aims to bring back the feelings of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-confidence among them. Most importantly, the concept of equality materializes in the society where they belong. Why is Alcoholism being protected under the ADA, but drug user are not?             There is much news that links to alcoholism in various media. This is not a new problem that the society faces nowadays. In fact, it has been a very common problem that up to now has not been able to resolve. Many people are undergoing treatment and counseling only to find themselves back to the habit. Currently, Alcoholism, same with transsexuality, is protected by ADA. It is considered as a disability under ADA.[9] On the contrary, drug addiction, though categorically known as impairment, is not accommodated with ADA.             Alcoholism and drug addiction are included as impairments, and persons who are alcoholics are impaired under the ADA. The impairment is protected only as long as it does not interfere with the individual’s job performance. Thus, alcoholism and drug addiction are covered impairments, but not necessarily “disabilities” under the ADA.[10] In summary, drug addiction is not covered by ADA because of some consequences and considerations. At present, the court still studies the possible solution to this exemption. The study conducted by Henderson (1991) answers the big question on the exemption of drug addiction in the application and implementation of ADA.[11] It states that there is a need to reiterate and focus the attention needed and to clear the vagueness of the two aforementioned disabilities and/or impairments. Mental, emotional, and physical disabilities In the society, people who experience mental, emotional or physical disability have traditionally represented a hidden minority within and outside their community. Individuals with disabilities are those individual characterized as being different from the others. Literally through institutionalization, and subtly through negative attitudes and treatment, persons with disabilities have been isolated from the social mainstream and denied the benefits and opportunities available to non-disabled persons[12]. A “physical impairment” is a disorder, condition, disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects at least one body system. A “mental impairment” is “any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” The federal regulations, which interpret the ADA’s provisions include the following as “physical or mental impairments”: various contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions such as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; heart disease; HIV disease; drug addiction; and alcoholism”.[13]             These disabilities are covered in specific provisions of the ADA. Its constant and appropriate guidelines are provided within the limits of the said law. Its implementation is also with respect to the proper execution of all the intentions herewith. AIDS in the Workplace: are people with HIV being protected under the ADA (American with Disability Act)?             The people with HIV/AIDS are protected under ADA. It is established that “persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected by the law”[14]. The ADA also protects a qualified applicant without a disability who applies for a job and informs the employer that her spouse has AIDS. The employer cannot deny employment to the applicant simply because he/she fears the applicant may contract the disease or because he/she expects that providing health insurance benefits to the applicant will be too costly.[15] With the support of ADA to people with HIV/AIDS, there are many state laws that do not provide the broad scope of protection offered by the ADA. For example, the Texas Human Rights Commission Act specifically excludes persons with AIDS or HIV infection from the definition of protected disabilities (Vernor’s Texas Statutes). The disability laws in Alabama and Mississippi do not protect persons with mental disabilities (Code of Alabama, 21-7-1) and do not apply to private employers (Code of Alabama, 21-7-9). In each of these cases, the ADA will preempt the state law and will provide a greater level of protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities.[16] Again, there are still issues that are not addressed properly with regards to this specific provision of ADA. There is a need to further study and focus on these aforementioned problems and the efforts of finding the ultimate congruent solution will help to make this law better and beneficial to all. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

How the ADA is being handle today and problems with implementing the ADA? The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 199...

Another law that is against hate crime

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the different issues with regards to hate crimes. It will specifically state the different definition of the word hate crime and the different kinds of hate crime prevalent in the society. It will also attempt to state important laws and regulations that punishes and penalizes perpetrators of hate crime.             Although experts commonly agree that hate crime is prevalent in American society, these same writers, lawyers, sociologists and experts do not agree on the true and total definition of hate crime. The Congress of the United States defined hate crime as a crime in which “the defendant’s conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals”.  Meanwhile, other police organizations the United States define hate crime as criminal offenses committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias against an individual’s or a group’s race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation . In legal parlance, the term hate crime is diversely defined throughout the United States. The District of Columbia defines hate crime as crimes in which victims are selected because of a perpetrator’s bias against a victim’s perceived race, religion or ethnicity . However this definition is different when compared to other states in the Union since these states define hate crime in which the victims are chosen because of his/her sexual orientation. The California Penal Code section 422.6 offers a wider interpretation of hate crime, defining it as those acts “committed because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. The law against hate crimes punishes actions considered criminal by using force or threat of force in order to injure, intimidate or interfere with a person’s civil rights. State hate crime laws in the United States vary immensely in wording and in their definition of the phrase hate crime. Some laws employ a language of civil rights as can be seen in California when it adopted an “Interference with Exercise of Civil Rights” statute that states that no person, whether or not acting under the color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or the laws of the United States because of the other person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or sexual orientation . In contrast, some states employ the language of “ethnic intimidation or malicious harassment.” In 1983, for example, Idaho adopted a “Malicious Harassment” law that declares it shall be unlawful for any person, maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin to cause physical injury to another person, damage and destroy, or deface any real or personal property of another person . Another law that is against hate crime is Bill SB 1234 passed by the California legislature. In this piece of legislation passed by the California legislature, persons of all sexual orientations are protected from hate crimes. One strong objection with regards to this law is the act of criminalizing incitement to violence if a hate speech would result in physical harm for the protected group of individual . This law therefore criminalizes the act of inciting violence if the probability of harm is high. Although this law is passed in the legislature, other interest groups are against this law since in their view it restricts and obstruct the practice of free speech as mandated by the First Amendment. It is said that this law against hate crimes is an attack upon the religious freedom in the United States because the law punishes the thought and ideas of an individual and not the wrong or criminal act  This law as stated by groups that are against this hate crime law is an attack on the ability of an individual to criticize and comment on certain groups of people, In 1990, President Bush signed the Hate Crime Statistics Act that requires government officials specially the Attorney General to collect statistical data on crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity . Since this law is primarily concerned with data gathering, it merely requires the Attorney General to collect and to make available to the public certain statistics on hate crimes . Although data collection with regards to hate crime is important it does not answer the need to develop an effective policy that can be used by the federal government in prosecuting and punishing hate crime offenders. Supporters of this law meanwhile argued that mere data collection could help law enforcement officials in measuring trends, fashioning effective responses and designing prevention strategies . In 1994, Congress passed two more laws that deal with hate crime. The Violence against Women Act specifies that “all persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender” . This law also allocated over .6 billion for education, rape crisis hotlines, training of justice personnel, victim services especially shelters for victims of battery and special units of police and prosecutors to deal with crimes against women . Congress has also passed the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act. This law identifies eight predicate crimes–murder; non negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault; simple assault; intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property–for which judges are allowed to enhance penalties of “not less than three offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes” .  For the purposes of this law, “hate crime” is defined as criminal conduct wherein “the defendant intentionally selected any victim or property as the object of the offense because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person” . Although broad in form, this law addresses only those hate crimes that take place on federal lands and properties. Many oppose hate crime laws, stating that imposing a greater penalty on an act committed in hate would thus make hating illegal . Some Americans feel this to be a direct infringement on First Amendment rights. Others argue that such legislation provides special status to certain protected groups. They also say that distinguishing a hate crime requires reading the mind of the accused, a dubious prospect at best and perhaps not something that should be considered when deciding on punishments. In short, critics argue that hate crime legislation criminalizes thought and also clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment by denying “equal protection of the laws”. In addition, hate crime prosecutions seek to punish an individual for motive rather than intent. For example, the difference between first or second-degree murder is intent, not motive . It is also said that hate crime laws are largely unnecessary, as a crime committed solely on the basis of hatred of a group would already be punished harshly by the justice system. If no argument could be made in mitigation, thereby reducing the culpability of the offender or the seriousness of the offence, the offender would be sufficiently punished to the full extent of the law. Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. They also point out that all laws are subjective, and that if society can determine that one crime deserves more punishment than another then it can also determine what motivations deserve harsher punishments . Some supporters reason that one who can be moved to violence by hatred of a class of people presents greater danger to society than one who merely hates an individual. Their position states that if normal punishments are inadequate deterrents, then additional punishments may deter crimes motivated by hate. Other proponents of hate crime legislation consider that politically correct or socially sanctioned hate is a problem, and that legislation will need to explicitly cover those often deemed less worthy of protection . Another argument sometimes advanced by supporters of hate-crime laws are that violent acts motivated by political or similar reasons are characteristic of earlier, less enlightened societies, and toleration would result in regress. Proponents point out that it is not unusual to make thoughts or states of mind elements of a crime . Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Another law that is against hate crime

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the different issues with regards to hate crimes. It will specifically state the d...

The US Dollar and the Different Things it Faced

Introduction Today, virtually every country in the world is affected by what happens in other countries. Some of these effects are a result of political events, such as the overthrow of one government in favor of another. But a great deal of the interdependence among the nations is economic in nature, based on the production and trading of goods and services. One of the most rapidly growing and changing sectors of the U.S. economy involves trade with other nations. In recent decades, the level of goods and services imported from other countries by U.S. consumers, businesses, and government agencies has increased dramatically. But so, too, has the level of U.S. goods and services sold as exports to consumers, businesses, and government agencies in other nations. This international trade and the policies that encourage or restrict the growth of imports and exports have wide-ranging effects on the U.S. economy (Dunning 1999).   As the nation with the world’s largest economy, the United States plays a key role on the international political and economic stages. The United States is also the largest trading nation in the world, exporting and importing more goods and services than any other country. However, some people worry that extensive levels of international trade may have hurt the U.S. economy and U.S. workers in particular. But while some firms and workers have been hurt by international competition, in general, economists view international trade like any other kind of voluntary trade: Both parties can gain, and usually do. International trade increases the total level of production and consumption in the world, lowers the costs of production and prices that consumer’s pay, and increases standards of living. How does that happen? All over the world, people specialize in producing particular goods and services, then trade with others to get all of the other goods and services they can afford to buy and consume. It is far more efficient for some people to be lawyers and other people doctors, butchers, bakers, and teachers than it is for each person to try to make or do all of the things he or she consumes (Dunning 1999).   In earlier centuries, the majority of trade took place between individuals living in the same town or city. Later, as transportation and communications networks improved, individuals began to trade more frequently with people in other places. The industrial revolution that began in the 18th century greatly increased the volume of goods that could be shipped to other cities and regions, and eventually to other nations. As people became more prosperous, they also traveled more to other countries and began to demand for new products they encountered during their travels. The basic motivation and benefits of international trade are actually no different from those that lead to trade within a nation. But international trade differs from trade within a nation in two major ways. First, international trade involves at least two national currencies, which must usually be exchanged before goods and services can be imported or exported. Second, nations sometimes impose barriers on international trade that they do not impose on trade that occurs entirely inside their own country (Das 1993).   This research paper intends to determine the reasons for the expectations that the dollar will experience a downfall in 2005; this research paper also intends to determine the reasons why those expectations did not happen. Lastly,  this paper intends to determine what likely the course of the value of the dollar is over the next two years and why the dollar is expected to take this course in the next few years.   Dollar and its expected downfall (First Question) One of the reasons why the dollar was expected to fall in 2005 is its growing account deficit. As mentioned in an article by Edwards (2005), many analysts in academia, the private sector, and applied research institutions express increasing concern about the growing U.S. current account deficit. There is a general sense that current global imbalances are unsustainable and that adjustment must come sooner rather than later. The unprecedented magnitude of the U.S. current account deficit and the United States’ growing net foreign indebtedness have fueled these worries, with many analysts arguing that, unless something is done, the world will move toward a major financial crisis. The account deficit put some doubt if the dollar will continue to have its domineering power, this lead to the speculations that sometime in 2005; the US dollar will experience a downfall. Investment Adviser (20 December 2004) gave reasons for the expectations that the dollar will go down. These include US’s expansion and recovery and the Bush Administration has not been averse to a weak dollar because it has boosted the industrial heartlands where sentiment was beginning to suffer. These factors contributed to speculations that the dollar will go down. These factors contributed to the market scare that put the US dollar in the brink of downfall. Moreover, a reason for the expectation that the dollar will go down is the political problems the US has. The US government had to take care of its internal problems thus the economy and its finances were neglected thus the problems on this sector was fixed. Lastly, a reason for the expectation that the dollar will go down is the situation in Iraq that the country is currently facing, this also took some of the government’s attention on the economy.        Reasons why the downfall did not happen (Second Question) The reason why the US dollar did not experience a downfall as expected was the market grew tired and unmindful of such stories. The market started to lose care and lose interest in such situation that the speculations died down thus the dollar did not experience downfall. Another reason why the US dollar did not fall is the changes that happened to the world economy. The currencies of other countries have gone down due to different reasons, this reasons include political ones and other internal problems that these countries have. Because of the decrease in the value of other countries currency, the US dollar gained some of its strength thus the downfall did not happen. A reason why the US dollar did not experience the expected downfall is the different methods done by the US government to recover from such problem.  The US government extracted all the things it can do to remove such speculations and doubts about the US dollar. The US government also did its best to use all its resources to maintain the status of the dollar. Furthermore, a reason why the US dollar did not experience the expected downfall is because the government tried to fix and solve all the deficits they have. This brought back the confidence in the currency.  Lastly, a reason why the US dollar did not experience the expected downfall is due to some ease regarding the situation in Iraq. The situation in Iraq forced the government to lose its focus on its economy. The situation in Iraq also caused some lost of interest and lost of value of the currency. Since the situation in Iraq is little by little dying down, the focus of the government is back in the economy and this lead to renewed interest in the currency. The Iraq war affected the country and gave them other related problems. Once the said situation slowly calmed down, the different problems were given solutions and the country was able to return things to normal.   The dollar over the next two years (third question) The dollar had a tumultuous couple of years. It experienced some highs and lows. It encountered a situation wherein experts expected it to go in a downfall. Over the next few years, the dollar might still be having up’s and down’s and it may continue to be in the brink of downfall. The factors that caused it to experience its downfall and rise may be the same factors that will give the currency problems or benefits. Over the next few years, the dollar may experience a period of recession because it has experienced such things in the past and it might happen once more in the future. Over the next few years, the dollar’s competitor in the form of other currency can increase. Every country is trying its best to have the same status as the US and their currency in the future may be the ones that can compete head to head with US dollar. Lastly, over the next few years, the US may lose its dominance in the world currency because of the wrong management done by its future leaders. This could create many openings for different kinds of country.   Conclusion Every country in the world is affected by what happens in other countries. The downfall in the currency of a country can be experienced by others. The US is not an exemption of this event. In 2005, people expected that the US dollar will experience a downfall.  One of the reasons why the dollar was expected to fall in 2005 is its growing account deficit. Another reason is the US’s expansion and recovery and the Bush Administration has not been averse to a weak dollar because it has boosted the industrial heartlands where sentiment was beginning to suffer. Moreover, a reason for the expectation that the dollar will go down is the political problems the US has. Lastly, a reason for the expectation that the dollar will go down is the situation in Iraq that the country is currently facing. The expected downfall did not take place due to different reasons discussed. The US dollar might continue to encounter such problems and it might get worse depending on what the government will do to prevent it. The US dollar affects the world currencies and its downfall or rise can affect the currency of the world.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

The US Dollar and the Different Things it Faced

Introduction Today, virtually every country in the world is affected by what happens in other countries. Some of these effects are a resu...

The War in Iraq

I.       Introduction The United States must promptly end its military occupation of Iraq. A military withdrawal will maximize America’s ability to refocus its efforts on the fight against Al Qaeda and other anti-American terrorist groups with global reach and, at the same time, minimize the risks to vital U.S. national security interests. The occupation is counterproductive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation of Islam. Given the failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and the similar failure to establish a linkage between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the military occupation of Iraq can be made to look like the second phase of a U.S. war of conquest by individuals such as bin Laden who hunger for a civilizational clash between Muslims and non-Muslims. II.       Historical Background of the Conflict A.     Iran-Iraq War Iran-Iraq War was an armed conflict that began when Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and ended in August 1988 after both sides accepted a cease-fire sponsored by the United Nations (UN).  The war was one of the longest and most destructive of the 20th century, with casualties estimated to be more than one million.  Notwithstanding the conflict’s length and cost, neither Iran nor Iraq made significant territorial or political gains, and the fundamental issues dividing the countries remained unresolved at the end of the war.  Even though there had been border agreement, relations between Iran and Iraq continued to suffer periodic crises for two main reasons.  First, despite from the fact that Iraq is predominantly Arab and Iran is predominantly Persian, the border still cut across some political loyalties.  In the north, a large population of Kurds (neither Arab nor Persian) straddled both sides of the border.  Along the southern part of the border, an Arab minority inhabited the Iranian province of Khuzestan among a Persian majority.  Moreover, the largest portion of the Iraqi population is Shia Muslim, as is the majority of the Iranian population.  Shia religious leaders at odds with the secular (non-religious) government of their own country sometimes sought refuge in the other, straining Iranian-Iraqi relations.              Secondly, it was both countries that were politically unstable.  When either Iran or Iraq experienced a revolution or coup, the other country would exploit the troubled country’s political weakness to gain a diplomatic advantage. As Western countries, especially the United Kingdom, gradually lost influence in the area in the mid-20th century, both Iran and Iraq felt free to pursue more ambitious foreign policies unhindered (and at times even supported) by external powers. By the beginning of the year 1970s, both Iran and Iraq sought broader influence in the region. B.     Persian Gulf War This was the conflict that begun in August 1990, when Iraqi forces invaded and occupied Kuwait.  The conflict culminated in fighting on January and February 1991 between Iraq and an international coalition of forces led by the United States.  By the end of the war, the coalition had driven the Iraqis from Kuwait. Causes of Persian Gulf War In 1961, Britain granted Kuwait independence, and Iraq revived an old claim that Kuwait had been governed as part of an Ottoman province in southern Iraq and was therefore rightfully Iraq’s. Iraq’s claim had little historical basis, however, and after intense global pressure, Iraq recognized Kuwait in 1963. Nonetheless, there were occasional clashes along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, and relations between the two countries were sometimes tense. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was pumping oil from a field that straddled the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border and was not sharing the revenue. Iraq also accused Kuwait of producing more oil than allowed under quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and thereby depressing the price of oil which is the  Iraq’s main export.   III.       Bush’s Policy Towards the War In his address, Mr. Bush sought to put the war in Iraq into a larger context of the global war against a radical Islamic movement that he said was a direct threat to U.S. security.  According to analysts, the speech was a refocused attempt to connect the war in Iraq to the larger worldwide war on terror that the Gallup Poll says still produces his strongest approval rating which is 52 percent.  It would be hard for Americans to see the war in Iraq in its larger context while the president is just using the bully pulpit to educate the people on the war on terror.   The address makes a perfect sense that the president just want to convince Americans that this is a large part of a much larger global struggle.  However, according to Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, the speech was “personally disappointing” (as cited in The Washington Times 2005 October 7).               According to Buckler Jr. (2006), the main reason behind all woes is America itself.  He quoted that everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America.               CRITICISMS             The Bush doctrine, however, has met with significant criticism. The arguments against the doctrine expressed both before and since the invasion of Iraq, accuse it of leading the United States to act unilaterally and to behave arrogantly. The United States risks alienating world opinion, critics of the doctrine say, thereby jeopardizing the international cooperation essential to hunt down terrorist organizations.  The doctrine of preemptive war, these critics add, is likely to encourage rather than discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and if adapted by other nations, could increase the likelihood of regional conflicts.  “It cannot be in either the American national interest or the world’s interest to develop principles that grant every nation an unfettered right of preemption against its own definition of threats to its security” says Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State.              Two of the most prominent critics of the Bush doctrine are former national security advisors Brent Scowcroft, who served under President George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski*, who served under President Jimmy Carter. An open policy of preemptive war, Scowcroft told the media “tends to leave the door open to others who want to claim the same right. By making it public, we also tend to add to the world’s perception that we are arrogant and unilateral.” Brzezinski echoed a similar theme, saying, “Our doctrine of preemption may encourage others to preempt their neighbors, thereby legitimating increasingly indiscriminate use of power.”             Finally, as some so-called realist critics of the Bush doctrine argue, history demonstrates that nations tend to seek a balance of power.  By asserting that it intends to prevent other countries from “surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States,” these critics say, the Bush administration is simply encouraging other nations to band against America. They point to the fact that the first application of the Bush doctrine has already led to a rupture in relations with several long-standing allies, such as France and Germany, and was opposed in the United Nations Security Council by China and Russia. Both opponents and proponents of the Bush doctrine, however, are likely to agree on one thing. It is the most radical change in U.S. foreign policy in more than 50 years, and it has led the United States to wage the first preemptive war in its history.  IV.       For and Against the War FOR Supporters of the war have seen Saddam as the cancer of the world and needs to be eradicated.  Not only is he a threat to the U.S. but also a threat to world peace in general.  Moreover, these pro-war claimed that only America can preserve the peaceful world order that benefits all mankind.  They support the Bush doctrine as the only workable mechanism in this age of terrorism and asymmetric warfare.  AGAINST Even the veteran of Vietnam was nauseated by the concept that the U.S. government is conquering another nation for the right of the selected few to reap the rewards of Iraq’s resources.  The war in Iraq in eliminating Saddam Hussein is just a front instead the war is against humanity at large.  Anti-war supporters claimed on the morals and ethics.  They remarked the poor decision-making of the Bush administration that would have save lives and less damage to the U.S. economy and budgets.  Such poor decision is considered immoral, illegal, shameful action taken by the U.S. government.  The declaration of war proved Bush as much as a criminal as those he denounces.  V.       Conclusion The U.S. troop presence in Iraq is burdensome, in terms of both lives lost and dollars spent, and completely unnecessary. The dollar costs are likely to exceed billion per year. Rather than spend such vast sums over and above the 0 billion spent annually for defense, the United States should use the advantages that its military spending has purchased. The United States is capable of fighting Al Qaeda in a variety of ways, few, if any, of which require military invasion and occupation of enemy states. Even in those rare instances in which the use of overwhelming military force is warranted, such operations rarely require the stationing of U.S. troops in foreign lands. The recent war in Iraq and the previous operation in Afghanistan demonstrate the American military’s enormous capability for power projection over great distances. As with so many public policy issues now comes to grips with the problem of sunk costs. Some observers might argue that the United States has already spent so much on the Iraqi project that we must stay, that we cannot afford to leave. But for the person who finds himself in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging. The same men and women who previously predicted that the war would pay for itself and that postwar Iraq would quickly settle into peace and stability, will undoubtedly decry such measures as defeatism. A decision by the Bush administration to quickly hand over full political power to the new government of Iraq, and to follow on that decision by removing all U.S. military personnel from the country, will minimize the enormous costs and risks associated with a military occupation and could eventually set the stage for a stable and sustainable relationship between Iraq and the United States.           Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

The War in Iraq

I. Introduction The United States must promptly end its military occupation of Iraq. A military withdrawal will maximize Ameri...

How the ADA is being handle today and problems with implementing the ADA?

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a comprehensive civil rights law that condemns the discrimination of people with disabilities based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. It was signed by President George H. W. Bush on July 26, 1990. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 impose negative sanctions for acts of discrimination against people with disabilities and promote alternative practices and consciousness.             At the time of the passage of the ADA, there are about 43 million Americans or 15 percent of the population was estimated to have a disability. This legislative landmark for people with disabilities expanded the scope of the Rehabilitation Act beyond isolated pockets of federal authority to include public and private sectors fully. With respect to employment, it built on the earlier statute’s Section 504 by including the mandate for private-sector employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for workers with disabilities. Today, ADA greatly improved the welfare of people with severe disabilities. However, it was disapproved by some critics because of little progress in eliminating the discrimination instead it allows remedies which are complaint-driven under the law. It is when individuals must make a complaint of discrimination to a person or agency charged with handling such complaints only after which the agency may take action. Furthermore, the ADA was judged as “overinclusive” in its scope. There are some cases that the law is being utilized by some abusive individuals (such as malingerers and the so-called professional plaintiffs) that make it as a source of income. They sue organizations, business and companies and collect monetary damages. The ADA also presents a ferocious media counterattack upon its implementation. There are some episodes in The Simpsons that showed Homer as grossly obsessed in order to escape the mandatory workplace fitness program as a requirement in the company. There is also an article written in The Onion – a caricature newspaper published weekly in print and on the Internet that satirized ADA as “Americans with No Abilities”. But with the implementation of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines, the said argument was fixed. There are numerous contradictions and debates with regards to the ADA. But the bottom line is the fact that the law was created for the welfare of the people with disabilities. It covers the fact that people with such disabilities are not completely and appallingly disabled. They are categorically identified with severe disabilities but they can still perform some jobs and functions necessary in practiced and performance of their duties in the workplace or environment they belong. People agree that ADA should accommodate all people with disabilities but there are still some limitations. For instance, a person with physical disability such as paraplegia (both legs paralysis) should be accommodated. But a person with mental disorder such as schizophrenia and mood disorder is a big question. Hence, there are still significant numbers of people that believed that the accommodation of this law put too many restrictions instead of offering boundless opportunity to its intended recipients. Additionally, the underlying philosophy of the liberal welfare state is fundamental to the independent living movement (ILM), which calls for tax-supported services that include personal assistants, medical insurance (which now covers provision and maintenance of electric wheelchairs, respirators, and other adaptive equipment), and entitlements (income supplements) to guarantee a basic standard of living especially to the people with disabilities. The ILM tends to be allied with left-liberal politics. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, conservatives have been responsive to arguments favoring the disabled that also emphasize self-sufficiency, breaking down barriers to employment so that disabled people can earn their own living in the private sector. Such arguments were the basis for the endorsement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by the conservative Bush administration.  Personally, I view the ADA as a positive reinforcement to people with disabilities. It recognizes the vital contributions that they can give, in any aspect for that matter such as mental and moral, for the growth and progress of the company, field or opportunity they are affiliated and most especially to their selves. The ADA aims to bring back the feelings of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-confidence among them. Most importantly, the concept of equality materializes in the society in which they belong.   Why is Alcoholism being protected under the ADA, but drug user are not?               There is much news that links to alcoholism in various media. This is not a new problem that the society faces nowadays. In fact, it has been a very common problem that up to now has not been able to resolve. Many people are undergoing treatment and counseling only to find themselves back to the habit. Currently, Alcoholism, same with transsexuality, is protected by ADA. It is considered as a disability under ADA. On the contrary, drug addiction, though categorically known as impairment, is not accommodated with ADA.             Alcoholism and drug addiction are included as impairments, and persons who are alcoholics are impaired under the ADA. The impairment is protected only as long as it does not interfere with the individual’s job performance. Thus, alcoholism and drug addiction are covered impairments, but not necessarily “disabilities” under the ADA. In summary, drug addiction is not covered by ADA because of some consequences and considerations. At present, the court still studies the possible solution to this exemption. The study answers the big question on the exemption of drug addiction in the application and implementation of ADA. It states that there is a need to reiterate and focus the attention needed and to clear the vagueness of the two aforementioned disabilities and/or impairments.   Mental, emotional, and physical disabilities   In the society, people who experience mental, emotional or physical disability have traditionally represented a hidden minority within and outside their community. Individuals with disabilities are those individual characterized as being different from the others. Literally through institutionalization, and subtly through negative attitudes and treatment, persons with disabilities have been isolated from the social mainstream and denied the benefits and opportunities available to non-disabled persons. “A “physical impairment” is a disorder, condition, disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects at least one body system. A “mental impairment” is “any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” The federal regulations, which interpret the ADA’s provisions include the following as “physical or mental impairments”: various contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions such as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; heart disease; HIV disease; drug addiction; and alcoholism”.             These disabilities are covered in specific provisions of the ADA. Its constant and appropriate guidelines are provided within the limits of the said law. Its implementation is also with respect to the proper execution of all the intentions herewith. AIDS in the Workplace: are people with HIV being protected under the ADA (American with Disability Act)?               The people with HIV/AIDS are protected under ADA. It is established that “persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected by the law”. The ADA also protects a qualified applicant without a disability who applies for a job and informs the employer that her spouse has AIDS. The employer cannot deny employment to the applicant simply because he/she fears the applicant may contract the disease or because he/she expects that providing health insurance benefits to the applicant will be too costly. With the support of ADA to people with HIV/AIDS, there are many state laws that do not provide the broad scope of protection offered by the ADA. For example, the Texas Human Rights Commission Act specifically excludes persons with AIDS or HIV infection from its definition of protected disabilities (Vernor’s Texas Statutes). The disability laws in Alabama and Mississippi do not protect persons with mental disabilities and do not apply to private employers. In each of these cases, the ADA will preempt the state law and will provide a greater level of protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities. Again, there are still issues that are not addressed properly with regards to this specific provision of ADA. There is a need to further study and focus on these aforementioned problems and the efforts of finding the ultimate congruent solution will help to make this law better and beneficial to all.     Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

How the ADA is being handle today and problems with implementing the ADA?

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a comprehensive civil rights law that condemns the discrimination of people with d...

President George W. Bush’s Speech at NASA Headquarters

Bush, President George W.  Speech. NASA Headquarters. 14 January 2004     Speech at NASA Headquarters by President George W. Bush   Thanks for the warm welcome. I’m honored to be with the men and women of NASA. I thank those of you who have come in person. I welcome those who are listening by video. This agency, and the dedicated professionals who serve it, have always reflected the finest values of our country—daring, discipline, ingenuity, and unity in the pursuit of great goals. America is proud of our space program. The risk takers and visionaries of this agency have expanded human knowledge, have revolutionized our understanding of the universe, and produced technological advances that have benefited all of humanity. Inspired by all that has come before, and guided by clear objectives, today we set a new course for America’s space program. We will give NASA a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own.   [. . . .]   Two centuries ago, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark left St. Louis to explore the new lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. They made that journey in the spirit of discovery, to learn the potential of vast new territory, and to chart a way for others to follow. America has ventured forth into space for the same reasons. We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways. The exploration of space has led to advances in weather forecasting, in communications, in computing, search and rescue technology, robotics, and electronics. Our investment in space exploration helped to create our satellite telecommunications network and the Global Positioning System. Medical technologies that help prolong life—such as the imaging processing used in CAT scanners and MRI machines—trace their origins to technology engineered for the use in space. Our current programs and vehicles for exploring space have brought us far and they have served us well. The Space Shuttle has flown more than a hundred missions. It has been used to conduct important research and to increase the sum of human knowledge. Shuttle crews, and the scientists and engineers who support them, have helped to build the International Space Station. Telescopes—Including those in space—have revealed more than 100 planets in the last decade alone. Probes have shown us stunning images of the rings of Saturn and the outer planets of our solar system. Robotic explorers have found evidence of water—a key ingredient for life—on Mars and on the moons of Jupiter. At this very hour, the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit is searching for evidence of life beyond the Earth. Yet for all these successes, much remains for us to explore and to learn. In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther upward into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington, D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts. America has not developed a new vehicle to advance human exploration in space in nearly a quarter century. It is time for America to take the next steps. Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system. We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel. We’ll make steady progress—one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time. Our first goal is to complete the International Space Station by 2010. We will finish what we have started, we will meet our obligations to our 15 international partners on this project. We will focus our future research aboard the station on the long-term effects of space travel on human biology. The environment of space is hostile to human beings. Radiation and weightlessness pose dangers to human health, and we have much to learn about their long-term effects before human crews can venture through the vast voids of space for months at a time. Research on board the station and here on Earth will help us better understand and overcome the obstacles that limit exploration. Through these efforts we will develop the skills and techniques necessary to sustain further space exploration. To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle’s chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle—after nearly 30 years of duty—will be retired from service. Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods. Eugene Cernan, who is with us today—the last man to set foot on the lunar surface—said this as he left: “We leave as we came, and God willing as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” America will make those words come true. [Applause.] Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth’s gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement. With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond. [Applause.] Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers—the advanced guard to the unknown. Probes, landers and other vehicles of this kind continue to prove their worth, sending spectacular images and vast amounts of data back to Earth. Yet the human thirst for knowledge ultimately cannot be satisfied by even the most vivid pictures, or the most detailed measurements. We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves. And only human beings are capable of adapting to the inevitable uncertainties posed by space travel. As our knowledge improves, we’ll develop new power generation propulsion, life support, and other systems that can support more distant travels. We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: human beings are headed into the cosmos. [Applause.] And along this journey we’ll make many technological breakthroughs. We don’t know yet what those breakthroughs will be, but we can be certain they’ll come, and that our efforts will be repaid many times over. We may discover resources on the moon or Mars that will boggle the imagination, that will test our limits to dream. And the fascination generated by further exploration will inspire our young people to study math, and science, and engineering and create a new generation of innovators and pioneers.   [. . . .]   We begin this venture knowing that space travel brings great risks. The loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia was less than one year ago. Since the beginning of our space program, America has lost 23 astronauts, and one astronaut from an allied nation—men and women who believed in their mission and accepted the dangers. As one family member said, “The legacy of Columbia must carry on—for the benefit of our children and yours.” The Columbia’s crew did not turn away from the challenge, and neither will we. [Applause.] Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey. May God bless. [Applause.]     Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

President George W. Bush’s Speech at NASA Headquarters

Bush, President George W. Speech. NASA Headquarters. 14 January 2004 Speech at NASA Headquarters by President George W. Bush ...