Overall, Richard views Carnegie as “little capitalist who urged presidents to do right things in Philippines, Panama and international diplomacy [but] had never done the right or moral thing as a businessman,” (Ernsberger). Richard displays this by including Carnegies expenses such as “$10 million to found the Carnegie Endowment for Peace” furthermore demonstrating that Carnegie did not spend his money on the business. However, Harold explains that Carnegies investments on developing the community is his way of repaying the community for their contribution to his
Robert Arneson’s Portrait of George portrays George Moscone, a former mayor of San Francisco in the late 1970s. The portrait is actually a bust, that sits on a column covered with graffiti and phrases in reflection to Moscone’s life and may have been deemed unusual due to its overly casual appearance in bright colors and irreverent nature. This contrasts with Moscone’s professional career and reputation in politics and was not successful as political art as it was taken down for being seen as inappropriate and unrefined. Though Arneson’s intentions may have meant well, the controversy lied in the lack of nobility of the appearance of the bust. An honoring of a person in form of art is usually seen as more noble and serious in appearance as
However, it only had a limited effect because the government was unable to control the activity of banks and railroads which were two of the most powerful industries in the world. Other presidents were also able to establish antitrust reforms. President Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Trade Commission Act, aimed to prevent monopoly, and the Clayton Antitrust Bill. As Document E illustrates, the Clayton Antitrust Bill claims it unlawful to "lessen competition” or “tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce". Although Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson established reforms to stop monopoly, they still had many holes in their trust-busting campaign which severely limited the full effects of
But it was true that his presidency was not very recognizable and it had a lot of backfire and different bad moments, the Great Depression had a lot to do with why Hoover’s presidency failed, the people had thought that since he couldn’t keep the stock market together that he would not be able to keep America together. Hoover getting undermined by Congress was definitely not what he thought was going to happen, thinking that he could just be able to rebuild America after the depression would have been easier if he and Congress had gotten along, in the end, Herbert Hoover was the thirty first president of the United States and had served this country and had made sure that it got administered America as though anyone would have if the stock market had happened to crash, it’s good to think back to Hoover’s humanitarian works because he did help out a lot of people in serious need, he did all of this but still having a complete income of millions of dollars working as a mining engineer, he was creative about his ideas and with that he created such things as the Hoover Dam,
For instance, Lack talks about how Blacks and Latinos were torn between supporting either the Mexicans of the Texans. Strangely enough, their choices were not as such inspired by patriotism to their nation but survival. This practice has extended even to modern society where many prejudices exists about black people due to their simple desire to survive. Perhaps the greatest contrast between the two books is that in The American Promise, the authors analyse how environmental issues such as conservation of sources of energy (coal, fossil fuel) and deforestation. In The Revolutionary Experience, however, the focus on environmental issues is not only shallow but also Lack does not proceed to show how it affected the politics of the time.
Unlike most political programs, Reagan’s broadcasts did not focus exclusively on matters of state, although he did spend a great deal of times on those topics. But for every speech Ronald Reagan delivered about tax laws, the danger of Communism, and the need for better education, there seemed to follow a second type of broadcast that focused exclusively on the kindness and decency of a person or a group of people. Reagan disliked the phrase “the common man” and instead chose the word individual and attributed the “quiet courage” of the individual to be the secret of America’s success. Far beyond mere human interest stories, his narration of the heroics of the individual demonstrates that there are still those in the world who consider the duty of loving their neighbor and fighting to secure his physical and spiritual rights to be a sacred duty that must be carried out at all
The purpose of this essay is to examine the reforms which were instituted by the New Deal and their efficacy in dispelling the Great Depression which assailed society. There is a great amount of debate surrounding the effect of the New Deal in relief, recovery and reform. Esteemed historian William Leuchtenburg argued that the “New Deal left many problems” and never demonstrated capability to “achieve prosperity in peacetime”, permitting only a “halfway revolution.” Contrastly, Jonathan Alter argued that the “shortcomings of the New Deal” could not “undermine” the achievements of Roosevelt and, instead, his efforts created a “new social contract” which has bound his successors “to confront major domestic and international problems.” The myriad reforms imposed by the Roosevelt administration from 1933 to 1934 were responsible for the amelioration of American society through the proliferation of recovery, relief and reform measures to inhibit the tribulation and hardship of the American people. The predominant reforms of the New Deal were the reform of banking and finance; the amendment of national business and employment; and the proliferation of public
Why do you think that gang problems are somewhat stubborn in large cities but not in small cities, towns, villages, or rural counties? Why may gang activity vanish in smaller jurisdictions? Why may gang troubles become progressively serious in some cities but not in others? Gang problems in larger cities are tenacious because of the economic conditions of the residents in larger cities. Very few small cities or and rural areas have the necessary population base and extremely deprived community circumstances to support gangs.
On the contrary, it was documented that low-income people were being forced out of a neighborhood whose rents and housing prices were high did not mean that gentrification itself was causing the displacement of the poor. It was noted that poor people often move away from non-gentrifying neighborhoods too instead of moving into one. John Buntin’s article “The Myth of Gentrification”, economist Terra McKinnish from University of Colorado in 2010 has found that “gentrification created neighborhoods that were attractive to minority households, particularly households with children or elderly homeowners. They found no evidence of displacement or harm. While most of the income gains in these neighborhoods went to white college graduates under the age of 40 (the archetypical gentrifiers), black high school graduates also saw their incomes rise.
CONTEXT This paper is written in the context of globalisation and informal settlements in Metro Manila. It discusses how the informal settlements face a competition for shelter with the wealthy class of the society because of the constant increase in land prices in the centre of the city. It makes two major arguments: the shelter crisis in developing countries is a major consequence of globalisation due to rising land values and increasing housing demands. And, the informal settlements created due to this are forgotten by the government, urban planners and policy-makers in the city. The author has tried to prove these two arguments by taking the case study of Metro Manila where the government’s only focus is to drive the export-oriented economy and attract a large sum of investment.