Night By Elie Wiesel Essays - Holocaust Literature, Night

Night by Elie Wiesel Courtroom trial (prosecution) for Night by Elie Wiesel. NIGHT PROJECT (3/15/96) * Opening Statement: Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the prosecution team is representing the state of Israel against Mr. Idek. He was a kapo ( a Jew forced to be in charge of other Jews ). He was also in charge of the warehouse for electrical equipment. Mr. Idek has been charged with cruelty to the human race and the murder of a myriad Jews at the nazi concentration camp of Buna. We are here today to prove this man's guilt in his heinous crimes against humanity beyond a shadow of a doubt. The prosecution will provide evidence of Mr. Idek beating the Jews he was in charge of just because he happened to be in a bad mood. We will also prove that Mr. Idek took advantage of and sexually harassed multiple women while in charge of the prisoners at the concentration camp. In conclusion the prosecution would ask the jury to listen to all facts and witness presented throughout this case and to come up with the only true verdict that humanity can deliver, guilty. * Questioning: (Pro - The prosecution team) (Eliezer - Elie Wiesel) (Mr. Wiesel - Eliezer's Father) (Idek - Mr. Idek) (Juliek - A violinist at the camp) (Judge - His honorable Yitzach Herschel) Eliezer Pro - Eliezer do you see the kapo that was in charge of you at the concentrat- ion camp? Eliezer - yes there ( Eliezer points to Idek ). Pro - Eliezer, when were you introduced to Idek? Eliezer - When we reached Buna, the kapos randomly chose us. Pro - What was your first "bad" impression of Idek? Eliezer - When Juliek told us to stay away from him when he had his "bouts of madness". Pro - Did you ever see Idek beat or abuse any of the prisoners? Eliezer - Yes many times, however, two of the most prominent occasions were when he beat my father and I. The first one he beat my father for not working fast enough to suit him atthe time. The second one was when he beat me for simply getting into his way. Pro - Did you ever see Mr. Idek engage in any sexual or rape of any young women at the camp while you were under his charge? Eliezer - Yes, I once walked in on him and a young girl I assume was polish (since the camp had just gotten a trainload of polish Jews). Idek caught me and said, "You wait and see kid . . . . You'll soon find out what leaving your work's going to cost you . . . . You're going to pay for this pretty soon . . . . and now, go back to your place." Pro - Did he ever carry out his threat? Eliezer - Yes, Later during roll call Idek called out, "A-7713!" I stepped forward and he ordered me to lay down on a box he had brought out. I did as I was told and then Idek proceeded to whip me I counted 25 lashes of the whip before I lost conciseness. Pro - Thank -you for your testimony Eliezer. Mr. Wiesel Pro - Mr. Wiesel do you see the kapo that was in charge of you at Buna? Mr. Wiesel - Yes, he's over there ( He points at Idek ) Pro - Were you treated any different because of your older age? Mr. Wiesel - Yes, Idek seemed to take a specific dislike towards me because I was older than most of the men that were in his charge. Pro - Thanks - you for your testimony Mr. Wiesel. Juliek Pro - Juliek do you see the kapo that was in charge of you at Buna? Juliek - Yes, he's over there ( He points at Idek ) Pro - Why were you in the orchestra block? Juliek - I was there because I am a violinist. Pro - Did you ever warn Eliezer and his father of Idek? Juliek - Yes Pro - Why? Juliek - I warned them because Idek had a split personality, he could be in a normal mood and only yell and scream at us or he could get into one of his "maddened fits" and start beating up anyone that even looked at him wrong. Also he was in one of his maddened fits almost as much as not. Pro - Thank - you for you testimony Juliek. Idek Pro

Wayne LaPierre Biography - NRA Executive Director

Wayne LaPierre Biography - NRA Executive Director Since rising to the top administrative position at the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre has become one of the world’s most recognized faces in gun rights advocacy. LaPierre has served as executive vice president and chief executive officer of the NRA since 1991. He has worked for the NRA since 1977. LaPierre’s position as top administrator of the nation’s largest gun-rights organization has thrust him into the public eye, particularly in politics. As a result, he is both revered by fellow gun rights advocates and a lightning rod for criticism from supporters of gun control. Wayne LaPierre: Beginnings After obtaining a masters degree in government from Boston College, LaPierre entered the lobbying industry and has been a figure in government and political advocacy for his entire career. Before joining the NRA in 1977 as a 28-year-old lobbyist, LaPierre served as a legislative aide to Virginia Delegate Vic Thomas. LaPierre’s initial job with the NRA was state liaison for the NRA Institute of Legislative Action (ILA), the organization’s lobbying arm. He was quickly named the NRA-ILA’s Director of State and Local Affairs and became executive director of the NRA-ILA in 1986. Between 1986 and 1991, LaPierre became a central figure in the gun rights niche. His move to the NRA’s executive director position in 1991 came as gun rights became a central theme in American politics for the first time since the 1960s. With the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 and the resulting fallout of the new gun control laws, the NRA experienced its greatest period of growth since its foundation in 1971. LaPierre’s salary as the NRA’s CEO has been reported at figures ranging from $600,000 to nearly $1.3 million, usually by critics of the NRA. LaPierre has also served on the boards of directors of the American Association of Political Consultants, American Conservative Union, Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the National Fish Wildlife Foundation. An accomplished author, LaPierre’s titles that include â€Å"Safe: How to Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Home,† â€Å"The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights† and â€Å"The Essential Second Amendment Guide.† Wayne LaPierre: Praise LaPierre is often revered by gun rights advocates because of his uncompromising defense of the Second Amendment in the face of gun control proposals and anti-gun political leaders. In 2003, LaPierre took on CNN after the cable news giant aired a segment featuring Florida Sheriff Ken Jenne, a former Democratic state representative, and his advocacy for an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban, which was set to sunset in 2004. The segment showed two AK-47 rifles being fired at cinderblocks and a bulletproof vest in an attempt to show how one, purported by CNN to be a target of the AWB, packed more firepower than a civilian model. As a result of criticism from LaPierre, who charged CNN with â€Å"deliberately faking† the story, the network ultimately admitted that the second rifle was being fired into the ground by a deputy sheriff rather than being fired into the cinderblock target. CNN, however, denied knowledge of the target switch. In the aftermath of 2011’s so-called â€Å"Fast and Furious† scandal, in which AK-47s were allowed to be sold to Mexican drug cartel members and later implicated in the deaths of two U.S. border agents, LaPierre became critical of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s handling of the matter and later called for Holder’s resignation. One of the staunchest critics of President Barack Obama’s administration, LaPierre said before the president’s election that Obama harbored a greater â€Å"deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms† than any other presidential candidate in the NRA’s history. In 2011, LaPierre declined an invitation to join Obama, Holder, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for talks on the subject of guns. Wayne LaPierre: Criticism Not everyone has been amused by LaPierre’s sharp tongue, however. LaPierre’s statement about ATF agents involved in the Ruby Ridge and Waco assaults being â€Å"jackbooted thugs† led former President George H.W. Bush, a lifetime member of the NRA, to resign his membership in 1995. Five years later, even Charlton Heston - the NRA’s president at the time and perhaps its most beloved spokesman ever - called LaPierre’s statement â€Å"extreme rhetoric† after LaPierre said President Bill Clinton would tolerate a certain amount of killing if it meant strengthening the case for gun control.

Anti Federalists vs. Federalists

Anti Federalists vs. Federalists Anti-Federalist and Federalist Political Science American Government and Politics Professor Mike Connolly Anti Federalist vs. Federalists started after the Revolutionary war and the Americans had to figure out a way to get themselves out of economic depression because the war was costly and left many colonies in debt. Anti-federalists were those who opposed the development of a strong federal government and the Constitution in 1788, instead for power to remain in the hands of state and local governments. Federalists wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. People who supported the Anti-Federalist were people who lived in rural areas and had local power. People who supported the Federalist were rich people who lived in large rural areas. Basically middle class people supported the Anti-Federalist and rich people with businesses favored the Federalist. That is kind of similar to our current fight between power of government, for example Democrats vs. Republicans, Democrats favored people who are in the middle class and lower and Republicans favored people who are in the high class who are wealthy. The Anti-Federalist wanted to be like free agents they wanted to spend and manage their own money as they saw fit. They believed that no one should control the way they spend and control their money the Federalist were people who wanted the opposite. The debt and tension in Massachusetts known as the Shay’s Rebellion was a perfect example of why the U.S had the desire to concentrate on federal power. Before the constitution there were the Articles of Confederation, a 13 article agreement between 13 founding states that covered issues of the state sovereignty. The Articles of Confederation were mainly about the equal treatment of citizens, congressional development and delegation, international diplomacy, armed forces, fund raising, lawmaking, the relationship between the US and Canada and war debt. The problem with The Articles of Confederation was it was a very weak agreement on which to base a nation that the document never once referred to the United States of America. With The Articles of Confederation, congress became a form of Federal government, but it was weak by the fact that it could not fund any of the resolutions it passed. For example while people can print money, there was no solid regulation of the money, which led to a fast and deep depreciation. Though congress asked for millions of dollars in the 1780’s, they received less than 1.5 million over the course of three years, from 1781 to 1784. This inefficient and ineffective governance led to economic woes and eventual, if small scale, rebellion. As George Washingtons chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton saw firsthand that the problems caused by a weak federal government particularly those which stemmed from a lack of centralized fiscal and monetary policies. With Washingtons approval, Hamilton assembled a group of nationalists at the 1786 Annapolis Convention also known as the Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government. Here, delegates from several states wrote a report on the conditions of the federal government and how it needed to be expanded if it was to survive its domestic turmoil and international threats as a sovereign nation. After the Articles of Confederation cam the Constitution in 1788 where the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, greatly expands the powers of the federal government. With their only being 27 Amendments, the US Constitution remains a supreme law of the United States allowing it to define, protect, and tax its citizens. Federalist who were the main support ers of the Constitution; they were aided by federalist sentiment that had gained traction across many factions, uniting political figures. The Anti-Federalist, who was leaded by Thomas Jefferson, fought against the Constitutions ratification, mainly the amendments which gave the federal government fiscal and monetary powers. The fight between the two groups the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist resulted in the upcoming of the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, it was a series of handwritten essays from various figures for against the ratification of the Constitution and the protection of the Constitution. Among the Anti-Federalist were Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Jefferson was the leader among the Anti-Federalist and other prominent Anti-Federalist included Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. For the Federalist side they had Alexander Hamilton a former chief of staff to George Washington, he was a proponent of a strong federal government and fou nded the Federalist Party. He helped oversee the development of a national bank and a taxation system. Other famous Federalist was John Adams and John Jay. There were also three kinds of Anti-Federalist, the first kind represented by politicians such as Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. The second kind of Anti-Federalist were the people who were not privy (a person having a part or interest in any action, matter, or thing) to the debate in Philadelphia, and has some concerns about the potentiality (the ability to develop or come into existence) of the Constitution to lead to the concentration of power in the new government. Third and final groups of Anti- Federalist were those who want as little deviation from the articles of confederation as possible and saw that partly national and partly federal compromise as totally unsustainable. Basically Anti-Federalist wanted a weak federal government that would not threaten state rights and wanted the Bill of Rights to declare and protect the rights of the people. During the Ratification the Federalists promise an addition of a Bill of Rights. The ratification succeeded and the new government was formed in 1789. James Madison was a Federalist or Democratic Republic who drafted the 10 amendments to the Constitution and these become the U.S Bill of Rights. Once again the Federalists believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to create a more perfect union by improving the relationship among the states. The Federalist also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states, but to do so they advocated f or a federal government with delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the Federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent, by building a government upon foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states. Present day it appears that the government established by the Constitution is an improvement from that which was established by the Articles of Confederation. Reading and writing about the confrontation between Federalist and Anti-Federalist I would have chosen the side of Federalist and I will explain why. Me Anti-Federalist were people who were scared of a strong government because they did not want the government to control their lives and wanted a little bit more freedom. Yes, people need their freedom but what they need more is to be secured and free from debt. The problem there was a economic struggle and people were in debt because of the war with Federalist we can have people manage the finances and economy. The Anti-Federalist sounded spoiled because they felt that the states were free agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they saw fit. Many people back then probably were not well informed about their finances and might have spent money that they could not afford to get back. To be on the safer side a professional should be the one to see what a person is allowed to spend without getting themselves into debt. At the same time Anti-Federalist have a point because they should not have too much power to the point where they can deny a person from purchasing a item. Anti-Federalist sounds like it is the freedom fighter group for the people and they are a group who opposes to strong of a government but people should know to much freedom can cause many problems. The positive side of Federalism is the protection against tyranny, is dividing the power between the national government and state governments and spreading the national government’s power among three branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. The protections we have in our system against a tyrannical, runaway government are one of the most important points to why the system was designed the way it was. Increasing citizen participation is by not centralizing all power into the hands of a national government, but sharing that power with state governments, which are closer to the level of the common citizen; our founders actually increased a citizen’s ability to effect their government. Finally one more positive point is conflict management, by allowing different communities and states to create their own practices, they allow for people with differences or very strong disagreements, to live in separate areas, and create their own solutions, or policies, that would be totally disagreeable to the other people in other states or regions of the country. Citations: 1. Anti-Federalist vs Federalist. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2017, from https://www.diffen.com/difference/Anti-Federalist_vs_Federalist 2. Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalists. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2017, from https://apgovernmentchs.wikispaces.com/Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalists 3. Bardes, B. A., Shelley, M. C., Schmidt, S. W. (2018). American government and politics today: the essentials. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Social Welfare in America Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Social Welfare in America - Research Paper Example The great depression of 1930s had devastating effects to the citizens of United States. Legislatures of that time took an initiative to create Social Security act in 1935, which influenced programs such as pension schemes, address issues touching on the unemployed, and children welfare (Alexander 5). Cushion families from financial difficulties was the intention of the social security act. The government stability depends on its ability to address factors influencing the wellbeing of its people. President Roosevelt’s regime lingers in the minds of the Americans whenever they discus social security programs. US legislatures amended the social security act in 1939 to cater for unemployment compensation (Tushnet 125). Unemployed are susceptible to hard life conditions, which can drive them into committing social crimes as a means to cater for their needs. The program intended to provide stipends, which would cater for their basic needs. Federal government created agencies, which could oversee welfare programs in United States. The agencies created through 1939 social security act include Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), Labor Department, Education, Agriculture, and Urban Development and Housing (Caputo 231). Each department addresses issues affecting US citizens. For instance, the department of agriculture addressed influences that originate from agricultural production in the nation. Education department ironed issues, which influenced acquisition of education in the United States. Historians believe that US welfare has been able to address critical issues, which influence human development (Handel 143). In 1965, US passed a social welfare act, which influenced the lives of elderly persons in the nation. The intention of the act was to compensate old persons by creating a kitty, which would cater for their wellbeing. The elderly have the challenge when it comes to finances, which would settle their bil ls in the society. The elderly compensation program has enabled many elderly persons to lead a positive life after retirement. In 1996, US government passed Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Epstein 46). The intention of the act was to address poverty effects in the society. The growing number of the poor in US was worrying and the government had to develop strategy, which could influence their lives. The act gives the federal government the power to direct funds to various states to cater for the poor. Assisting the poor accords human rights because the government has the mandate to protect the poor (Reintsma 212). Largely, the protection of the poor as stipulated in the in the constitution is a reality through this act. Medicare provision to US citizens has elicited debates on how the poor could benefit from the welfare program. The provision in the Medicare program is to ensure the US citizens can access quality healthcare. The program is in line wi th United Nations requirement, which intends to improve human health care as a basic requirement (Zastrow 136). Medicare social welfare program dates back to the time of President Johnson when United States had to compensate war veterans and their families for their contribution to

Bertrand Russell Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Bertrand Russell - Essay Example There are people around the world who might actually think this way. They have no concern regarding God, religion, and anything spiritual. They have no time for all this or they are simply not bothered to actually find out the evidence for Christianity. Thus, till someone has actually researched and looked into every aspect of the religion they cannot just say there is no evidence for God. Like Hitchens said regarding God that â€Å"there exists not a shred of respectable evidence† (Stokes, 2012, p. 11). Besides this, the â€Å"lack of evidence† is also an excuse for those not wanting to change their views. They just chose to believe something and therefore, they would not simply change because of some evidence they come across or are told of. They cannot be forced to believe. As Jesus said: â€Å"Seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened, ask and it will be given you.   For he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened, and to him who asks it shall be given† (Githaite, 2007, p. 211). It clearly means that God will be available to those who actually make an effort to seek him and look for him; who try to find evidence regarding his existence. God does not force Himself upon us. However, He has not even left us to our own devices for us to work out our ways. God follows us and draws us to Himself. Jesus is quoted to have said: â€Å"No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him† (Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 652). It is we who have to open up our minds and hearts to Him. God has given clues regarding his existence, he has given us a sound mind and heart and it is up to the human beings to look for them. God is visible to those who seek him while He hides away from the ones who do not. That is, â€Å"the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see† (Kreeft, 1988, p. 44). When it is said that enough evidence does not exist to prove that there is a God, it does not defini tely mean that existence of God becomes a scientific fact; rather, the present evidence just makes the Christian belief rational. Previously one major reason behind there being so many atheists was that the philosophers of those times were mostly atheists and they gave very solid arguments against God, gaining followers and making a huge impact. Now, however, the philosophers are theists and again their arguments are apparently very valid and intellectual, thus they being outspoken Christians and the belief in God. There is just too much information and evidence of the existence of God. To start with there is the Big Bang Theory according to which the universe was created out of nothing. Big Bang led to not just the formation of this universe, matter and energy but also time and space. It just does not make any sense that anything at all can be created out of nothing; it is just not possible either scientifically or philosophically. That only leaves one idea: that there is a very po werful Higher Being who formed the universe and now controls it. The Big Bang was caused by Him. In fact, the universe was not just formed but also maintained continuously and intelligently. There is scientific evidence to prove this fact. Stephen Hawking found that in case the universe had expanded less than even one part in a hundred thousand million million a second after the Big Bang, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. It is very obvious that a great and powerful mind is

Speech Intros Essay Example for Free

Speech Intros Essay Keating The purpose of PJ Keatings speech as Prime minister of Australia in 1992 was to encourage Aboriginal People and their supporters to have confidence in a future that would allow them to participate in Australian life to the same extent as other Australians. Keating begins his speech with the conceit that we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test, which so far we have always failed. Keating continues by using the motif of the test in a direct manner using economical language. To develop his theme of failure to care fore indigenous Australians he suggests that this needs to be addressed and explains idiomatically that by doing so we will truly be the land of the fair go. Geraldine Brooks Geraldine Brooks lecture a home in fiction reflects upon the pleasures of fiction and its importance in our lives. She uses her experience as a foreign correspondent to explain how she graduated from being a journalist unto her role of fiction writes The tone is reflected as she begins her speech with a personal anecdote about maths lecture that she attended. She was immediately transfixed on the terror of the lecture describing it like poetry. She then embellishes the idea with a series of metaphors describing her responses to the maths lecture as a sudden brief shaft of light. This suggests the revelation she felt when she caught a glimpse of the beauty of mathematics where every object sang to her with its own particular music. This lyrical prose allows her audience to share a pivotal moment, when mathematics assumed a greater purpose in her life. Brooks knows that she lacks the expertise to respond to the world and reflects that metaphorically, she swims in a sea of words and his is how she pushes into the full truth of the world. She describes her writing in the extended metaphor of the woodshed and that her experience as a  journalist had given her some durable tools. She continues by referring to writing as a craft where words are stones and the book is a wall and this demonstrates the laborious process of being an author. As she develops her theme i.e. the creating of fiction and its importance she refers to her research here is unearths the voices of the unheard. Thats is the reference in history to the labor of the illiterate. She uses these references to build her stories because she believes fiction matters and says I know is has power.

Free College Essays - Setting in Their Eyes Were Watching God :: free essay writer

Importance of Setting in Their Eyes Were Watching God In Zora Neale Hurston’s romantic novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, two settings are contrasted to reinforce the author’s theme of a search for true love. The setting of Eatonville, Florida, where main character Janie experiences life as the mayor’s wife, is contrasted with the Florida Everglades, where Janie lives with Tea Cake in a much more relaxed atmosphere. Hurston describes Eatonville not in a negative way, but more as a place that is not beneficial to an independent woman like Janie. Janie Starks, the wife of the mayor, is sentenced to spend her days as a worker in the town store, hair tied up, and silent. She must deal with money and figures without being able to enjoy the â€Å"lying sessions† on the porch, or attending such impressive town events like the â€Å"muleogy.† To the reader, Eatonville represents all that is repressive in life. Janie’s nature is restricted not by the town itself, but by her status in the town. Contrasted with Eatonville is the Everglades or the â€Å"muck.† The muck is where Janie can be free. Her hair is allowed to hang down, and she can dance, sing, talk, and socialize with everyone from the Indians to the landowners. The muck is where Janie lives with Tea Cake, her true love, her "bee." The muck symbolizes freedom and a relief from oppression that was experienced by Janie. The contrast of these two places reinforces the theme of a search for love and fulfillment. To see what an ideal situation for an independent woman like would be, Hurston must first show the reader what Janie cannot deal with. Hurston has her character Janie go on a quest, one that was begun the day she was forced to marry Logan Killucks. The contrast in the setting is similar to one between good and evil. Janie’s life with Joe fulfilled a need -- she had no financial worries and was more than set for life. She had a beautiful white home, a neat lawn and garden, a successful husband, and lots of cash. Everything was clean, almost too clean. A sense of restraint is present in this setting, and this relates to the work as a whole due to the fact that this is the epitome of unhappiness for Janie. The muck, however, is filthy. The rich soil covers everything in sight, even the bare skin of its inhabitants.